Worker Autonomy: A Natural Law of Labor
Philosophically, I hold the view that no developer—or any worker, for that matter—should be forced or coerced. Autonomy isn’t just vital for professionalism—it’s the cornerstone of workers’ dignity and humanity.
This is not just a moral argument; it’s a natural law argument—a belief in fundamental, self-evident rights tied to human nature. By nature, workers must have control over their own actions, because they are the ones performing them. It’s the worker’s hand that pounds the nail, types the code, or operates the machinery. It is most natural that they choose how to work. In fact, they can only lose this control through coercion—most often through the fear of being fired.
The Logical Limits of Authority
Some argue that corporate owners hold absolute authority, but logic shows their power must have limits. What if an owner demands the unreasonable—such as working 24-hour days—or insists on unsafe or unreasonable conditions? Clearly, the worker can refuse. In these extremes, worker autonomy is self-evident. But this same autonomy applies much more broadly.
Natural law dictates that all worker action must be voluntary—just as collaboration is voluntary in other relationships, like those between spouses, church volunteers, or friends.
The line between acceptable and unacceptable requests lies between compulsion and persuasion. Workers are under no inherent obligation to comply with any request; they are free to choose based on mutual benefit, not fear of reprisal.
Workers Are Not Property
The corporate notion that an owner’s will always takes precedence over that of the worker’s is fundamentally unnatural. While owners may have legal rights over company property, workers are not property. They are collaborators. As such, their compliance should be earned through persuasion and mutual benefit, not fear of being fired.
When workers defer unquestioningly to their superiors, they give up their natural rights. John Locke, in his Second Treatise, argues:
The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. 1
When workers mix their labor with a corporation’s resources, they naturally gain a stake in both the process and its outcomes—just as Locke describes. Too many corporations are accustomed to ignoring this natural ownership, ruling with an iron fist and taking all the proceeds. This is unnatural.
What It Looks Like in Practice
In software development—my area of expertise—unrealistic deadlines demonstrate this conflict clearly. Deadlines that lead to burnout or encourage poor workmanship are not mutually beneficial. Developers benefit most from working at a reasonable pace, where they can practice craftsmanship and cultivate mastery.
Developers must push back to safeguard their well-being and ensure quality work. If management can’t align their work expectations with reasonable working conditions, the relationship lacks mutual benefit, and developers should feel empowered to refuse.
Further, programmers must have autonomy over the labor of their hands and minds. They should have the authority to compose their work as they see fit, developing personal skills and competencies along the way. Workers should be judged on their outcomes, not micromanaged on their methods.
When management utilizes pseudo-productivity metrics, like task completion rates, they prioritize owner benefit at the expense of workers’ personal mastery and aspirations. This dynamic is not mutually beneficial—it’s exploitative.
Economic Dependence Worsens Coercion
The most insidious enabler of coercion in the workplace is economic dependence. Many workers live paycheck to paycheck, making the threat of being fired deeply coercive. Debt and reliance on steady income shackle workers, turning them into wage slaves under the illusion of choice. While not compelled by law to serve their employers, they are bound just as forcefully by economic necessity.
The suggestion that workers can simply "quit" if mistreated is naive. Economic dependence gives too much power to corporations. The resulting dynamic effectively creates an aristocratic class of capitalist owners who wield disproportionate power over workers.
Restoring Balance
To restore balance, we must reduce dependence on paycheck-to-paycheck living and adopt healthier workplace governance models. By empowering workers with autonomy and choice, we can reshape workplaces into spaces of mutual benefit, not coercion.
Sounds like I need to go read some Locke.