Narrator: An employee is fired for being too attractive. Another is let go for failing to attend a political rally for their boss's preferred candidate. At a major poultry processor, workers are denied bathroom breaks, with supervisors mocking them as some are forced to urinate on themselves. At a global tech company, retail employees must wait in line, unpaid, for up to half an hour after their shifts to have their personal bags searched. These are not hypothetical scenarios; they are documented realities of the American workplace. While these actions would spark a constitutional crisis if carried out by the state, they are often perfectly legal when enforced by an employer.

This stark contradiction is the central puzzle explored in Elizabeth Anderson’s groundbreaking book, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk About It). Anderson argues that we have been taught to see freedom and the free market as synonymous, and to view government as the only real threat to our liberty. In doing so, we have become blind to the most common form of authoritarian rule that most adults experience every single day: the private, unaccountable government of the workplace.

Narrator: Today, the idea of a "free market" is almost exclusively associated with the political right and libertarianism. But Anderson reveals a startling historical reversal: for centuries, the ideal of a free market society was a radical, egalitarian cause of the left.

This story begins with movements like the Levellers in 17th-century England. Arising from the turmoil of the English Civil War, they saw a world dominated by hierarchies. The king ruled the state, the church governed spiritual life, and guilds controlled trade with an iron fist. The Levellers argued for dismantling these monopolies. They believed that free trade and private property would empower ordinary people, allowing them to become "masterless men and women" who were economically independent and thus free from the arbitrary will of others.

This vision was shared by early economic thinkers like Adam Smith. When Smith famously wrote, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest," he was describing more than just a transaction. He was describing a relationship between equals. Unlike a beggar who must appeal to the pity of a superior, individuals in a market meet on terms of equal standing, their dignity affirmed. The dream, shared by figures from Thomas Paine to Abraham Lincoln, was of a society of small-scale producers, independent farmers, and self-employed artisans, all interacting as equals.

However, the Industrial Revolution shattered this dream. The rise of massive factories requiring huge capital investments made universal self-employment impossible. It created a vast and permanent class of wage laborers, widening the gulf between employer and employee. The egalitarian promise of the market was broken, replaced by a new, powerful hierarchy within the firm itself.

Narrator: Anderson makes a provocative and powerful claim: most workers in the United States are governed by what are, in effect, communist dictatorships in their work lives. This is what she terms "private government." A government is a system where some have the authority to issue orders to others. When that authority is arbitrary, unaccountable, and not subject to the consent of the governed, it is a dictatorship.

Consider the power employers wield. They can dictate what an employee wears, when they can speak, and when they can use the restroom. As Anderson documents, Walmart has prohibited employees from exchanging casual remarks on duty, labeling it "time theft." Tyson Foods has systematically denied bathroom breaks to its poultry workers. This authority often extends far beyond the factory floor and into employees' private lives. About half of all U.S. workers are subject to suspicionless drug screening, and millions are pressured to support their employer's political causes.

Under the legal doctrine of "employment-at-will," which is the default in the United States, an employer can fire a worker for any reason or no reason at all, except for a few legally protected categories. This grants employers, as Anderson puts it, "sweeping, arbitrary, and unaccountable" power. Workers have no right to due process, no right to an explanation, and no right of appeal. They can be fired for a Facebook post, for their choice of romantic partner, or for any off-duty activity their boss dislikes. While the U.S. Constitution protects citizens from such intrusions by the state, Anderson forcefully argues that "American workers have no such rights against their bosses. Even speaking out against such constraints can get them fired. So most keep silent."

Narrator: The most common objection to the idea of workplace dictatorship is that, unlike citizens of a totalitarian state, workers are free to leave. If they don't like the rules, they can quit. Anderson dismantles this argument with a sharp and memorable analogy. To claim that the power of exit makes a worker free, she states, "is like saying that Mussolini wasn’t a dictator, because Italians could emigrate."

Freedom of exit is not the same as freedom within a relationship. The costs of quitting a job can be immense, including the loss of income, health insurance, a social network, and one's home. Furthermore, the choice is often between one authoritarian workplace and another. Anderson draws another powerful parallel to the historical law of coverture, under which a woman, upon marrying, lost her legal identity and became subject to her husband's rule. A woman was free to consent to a marriage, but that consent did not justify the patriarchal system itself. Similarly, consenting to take a job does not justify a system where employers are granted nearly absolute power by default.

The fundamental issue is that the "constitution" of the workplace—the background set of rules and rights—is not negotiated between equals. It is set by the state, and the state has designed a system that heavily favors the employer, creating a private government where the worker is a subordinate, not a free contractor.

Narrator: Anderson does not argue for the abolition of managerial authority. The hierarchical structure of a firm is often necessary for efficiency and coordination. The problem is not hierarchy itself, but arbitrary and unaccountable authority. The solution, she proposes, is to transform private government into a form of public government—one that is accountable to those it governs. She outlines four key strategies to achieve this.

First is strengthening exit. This means banning practices like non-compete clauses, which trap workers and prevent them from seeking better opportunities.

Second is implementing the rule of law. This would require employers to provide just cause for dismissal, giving workers protection against arbitrary firings and a right to due process.

Third is establishing substantive constitutional rights, essentially a bill of rights for the workplace. This could include protecting workers' off-duty speech and privacy, and guaranteeing safe and dignified working conditions, such as the right to use a bathroom, which had to be explicitly mandated by OSHA after public outrage over cases like Nabisco's.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is giving workers a voice. This means strengthening legal support for unions and collective bargaining, which have seen a dramatic decline. In 1954, over 28 percent of U.S. workers were represented by a union; today, that figure is just over 11 percent, and a mere 6.6 percent in the private sector. Voice allows workers to participate in their own governance, adapting rules to local conditions and ensuring their dignity and interests are respected.

Narrator: The single most important takeaway from Private Government is its radical reframing of freedom. For generations, we have been conditioned to fear the tyranny of the state while celebrating the liberty of the market. Elizabeth Anderson reveals this as a dangerous illusion. By ignoring the power dynamics within the firm, we have allowed vast, unaccountable dictatorships to flourish in our workplaces, shaping the lives of millions with little oversight or recourse.

The book's most challenging idea is its simplest: the line between the public and private spheres is not as clear as we think. A government is any institution where some people have the authority to rule over others. The question is not whether we will be governed, but how. Will it be an arbitrary, private government where we are treated as subordinates, or a public, accountable one where we are recognized as equals? Anderson’s work is a powerful call to action to begin this long-overdue conversation.