The democratic case against fissuring work

This article explores what is problematic about the “fissuring” of work—the breaking up of large work organizations through subcontracting or franchising—from a democratic perspective. After describing the empirical evidence on fissuring, it explores two types of arguments. Arguments from “good work” ask whether fissured work is less likely to offer conditions of such good work. Here, however, one must expect a lot of variety; many arguments can be reduced to general criticisms of bad working conditions rather than offering specific criticisms of fissured work. A more successful type of argument stems from considerations of social cohesion, which concern citizens’ opportunities to get to know each other, fairness in remuneration, and chances for democratic experiences at work. For these reasons, fissuring is undesirable from a democratic perspective, even if one abstracts from its more obvious harms, for example, unjustifiable safety risks. The article concludes with some brief reflections on policy implications.