Michael Naughton

Alasdair MacIntyre explains that when speaking of justice, we are always faced with the question of “whose justice” and which tradition. The idea of what constitutes “just wages” is no exception. Among several visions, two tend to dominate: a “market” or “strategic” notion of a just wage and a communitarian, social or Aristotelian/Thomistic notion. Both agree that a just wage is fair and equitable compensation for work; however, what constitutes fairness is the basis of significant controversy. At the heart of this controversy is an understanding of what good is exchanged in the wage between employer and employee. For the market/strategic view, people and organizations must be free to negotiate and contract the wage price. The communitarian view or Aristotelian/Thomastic view of justice differs greatly. Justice within the communitarian perspective is a habit that directs the person's actions to the good of the other so as to contribute to stronger bonds of community. These two views have similarities and differences. Both would agree on where the company's responsibilities lie in light of their virtue. Both would argue that a firm is not responsible to pay employees in excess of a market or sustainable wage (one consistent with the sound financial management of the firm), even if it falls below a living wage. The essential difference is their underlying assumptions of what is exchanged.