4 ms·

Because if you don't work for someone you die and/or live a terrible life. Without the freedom to choose work, the labor market is not a free market, and the na

Because if you don't work for someone you die and/or live a terrible life. Without the freedom to choose work, the labor market is not a free market, and the narrative you are trying to push does not apply.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
That doesn't make non-rich people victims and rich people abusers when they choose to hire them and pay them their actual market wage. Life is hard for some people. It's not someone else's fault, and someone else shouldn't have their freedom of association and private property rights violated for it
nnfy 9y ago
Two points: 1. There is nothing in this discussion to suggest that employees do not have freedom to choose work; in fact, contracting by its very nature leaves individuals with more freedom to choose work elsewhere, even concurrently. 2. Without the freedom to choose employees as an employer, corporations cannot exist, or at least are substiantally less efficient, and in such case all of society is worse off. This is where aggressive unions can be bad for employees. I dont understand your point.
- matchagaucho 9y ago
  This line of reasoning is bordering on arrogance. To give a Worker one choice and calling it "freedom" is extremely callous. The skillsets we're talking about here (Cafeteria Workers and Bus Drivers) are not conducive to "self-employment". The Workers cannot set their own hours or rates; both requirements defined by the IRS to qualify as "Independent Contractor". See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-self-employed-or-employee https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
  - nnfy 9y ago
    Again, the problem here is workers voluntarily entering into illegally mislabeled positions. Where do you get the idea that a cafeteria worker or a bus driver can't leave to work for another school? Also, these are extremely low skill positions, there's nothing stopping these people from getting other jobs, why you feel like these workers have "one choice" is beyond me. I still don't understand what you're getting at. These people are free to work wherever they wish, and you've yet to demonstrate that there's something wrong with contracting in principle, when done legally. People shouldn't be unionizing, they should be talking to lawyers.

CryptoPunk 9y ago

That doesn't make non-rich people victims and rich people abusers when they choose to hire them and pay them their actual market wage. Life is hard for some people. It's not someone else's fault, and someone else shouldn't have their freedom of association and private property rights violated for it

nnfy 9y ago

Two points: 1. There is nothing in this discussion to suggest that employees do not have freedom to choose work; in fact, contracting by its very nature leaves individuals with more freedom to choose work elsewhere, even concurrently. 2. Without the freedom to choose employees as an employer, corporations cannot exist, or at least are substiantally less efficient, and in such case all of society is worse off. This is where aggressive unions can be bad for employees. I dont understand your point.

matchagaucho 9y ago
This line of reasoning is bordering on arrogance. To give a Worker one choice and calling it "freedom" is extremely callous. The skillsets we're talking about here (Cafeteria Workers and Bus Drivers) are not conducive to "self-employment". The Workers cannot set their own hours or rates; both requirements defined by the IRS to qualify as "Independent Contractor". See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-self-employed-or-employee https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
- nnfy 9y ago
  Again, the problem here is workers voluntarily entering into illegally mislabeled positions. Where do you get the idea that a cafeteria worker or a bus driver can't leave to work for another school? Also, these are extremely low skill positions, there's nothing stopping these people from getting other jobs, why you feel like these workers have "one choice" is beyond me. I still don't understand what you're getting at. These people are free to work wherever they wish, and you've yet to demonstrate that there's something wrong with contracting in principle, when done legally. People shouldn't be unionizing, they should be talking to lawyers.