4 ms·

My employer, who hired me for my degree, told me that he was willing to pay me for 40 hours. I later found out that it was a requirement that I work 60-80 hour

by dvtv75 11y ago

My employer, who hired me for my degree, told me that he was willing to pay me for 40 hours. I later found out that it was a requirement that I work 60-80 hours a week - not written into my contract, but this particular employer has an aversion to providing contracts. This displaces up to an entire employee. Said employer also gets taxpayer funding for the employee I've displaced. I would prefer that my employer met the minimum (non-US) legal requirements for salaried employees, but the literal threats of violence and permanent unemployment should I complain to the government, have kept me on up to $5/hour less than minimum wage - without meal breaks, public holidays, and weekends - all in breach of the law. Unethical law-breaking employers abound in my country, and many of the wealthiest have political contacts that mean they can get away with a lot. Having a minimum wage gives them something to dance around but if that disappeared things would get a lot worse: I would most likely find myself working for something nearer to $5 an hour. This (small) city alone has a median wage that sits about 25% under minimum wage on paper, but if you started really looking into it you'd find that the paid hours don't match the hours worked. No matter what your theories about minimum wage and the market say, you'll find that pragmatic side of having a minimum wage has a major positive impact on employees by providing some restriction to what employers can get away with.

p4wnc6 11y ago
To put things in perspective a little, my younger brother works as an inventory clerk for a company that makes custom industrial fasteners in the Midwest, US, and the working conditions you describe are actually better than his working conditions -- though I wholeheartedly agree that both of you have unfortunate working conditions and more should be done to improve the situation. If your situation is so extreme as to involve threats of violence, then it is non-negotiable that you need to remove yourself from it, even if it means facing grave and dire financial hardship. The psychological damage of an employer threatening you is worse than the damage of financial ruin or uncertainty. Also, on one hand you are claiming that minimum wage laws are beneficial, but then you're also saying that the political favoritism of your country allows those laws to be basically ignored (as in your case) with no consequence. To me, your comment is much more about ensuring legitimacy of government and enforcement of laws overall, and is very much unrelated to minimum wage at this point. Only after the enforcement of those laws is legitimized can you then begin to ask questions about what is the actual human effect of the law. Finally, I'd like to point out that I already said this type of reasoning (the argument that minimum wage denies opportunity to those who would agree to work for less) is overstated. I understand the economic rationale in the ideal case, and I was explaining that case just to clarify for the OP that I commented on ... not positing it as a robust defense or anything. Here's my other comment if interested: < https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11424743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11424743 >.

by dvtv75 11y ago

p4wnc6 11y ago

To put things in perspective a little, my younger brother works as an inventory clerk for a company that makes custom industrial fasteners in the Midwest, US, and the working conditions you describe are actually better than his working conditions -- though I wholeheartedly agree that both of you have unfortunate working conditions and more should be done to improve the situation. If your situation is so extreme as to involve threats of violence, then it is non-negotiable that you need to remove yourself from it, even if it means facing grave and dire financial hardship. The psychological damage of an employer threatening you is worse than the damage of financial ruin or uncertainty. Also, on one hand you are claiming that minimum wage laws are beneficial, but then you're also saying that the political favoritism of your country allows those laws to be basically ignored (as in your case) with no consequence. To me, your comment is much more about ensuring legitimacy of government and enforcement of laws overall, and is very much unrelated to minimum wage at this point. Only after the enforcement of those laws is legitimized can you then begin to ask questions about what is the actual human effect of the law. Finally, I'd like to point out that I already said this type of reasoning (the argument that minimum wage denies opportunity to those who would agree to work for less) is overstated. I understand the economic rationale in the ideal case, and I was explaining that case just to clarify for the OP that I commented on ... not positing it as a robust defense or anything. Here's my other comment if interested: < https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11424743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11424743 >.