8 ms·

Markets need regulations. Otherwise children stay in mines and the Irish need not apply. Also, based on the fact that you're on HN, I'm going to assume that yo

by moate 9y ago

Markets need regulations. Otherwise children stay in mines and the Irish need not apply. Also, based on the fact that you're on HN, I'm going to assume that you're lucky enough to work in a field that currently has a surplus of career options that pay a living wage. For lots of people that's not the case. These types of laws are meant to prevent exploitation of labor in the 21st century where "the workplace" has been completely changed. It's not perfect, it leaves plenty of ways for people to continue to be exploited, but it helps stem the bleeding and pushes the culture a bit in the right way. Your view of "just go to the job tree and pick a new job" is cute but completely out of touch.

peacetreefrog 9y ago
You could argue that viewing legislation like this as a sort of magic wand, "just pass a law that says nothing bad can happen to you if you don't check email outside of work and that'll fix everything" is even cuter, more out of touch.
- moate 9y ago
  Oh now who in their right mind said ANYTHING like that anywhere? I've made a LOT of posts on this thread and have very specifically not said that whatsoever because that's stupid. In fact I'll go ahead and quote myself and say "It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction". So yes, I agree with you. Thinking this is wizardry instead of a small step in the right direction would be very out of touch with reality.
tathougies 9y ago
I agree that markets need regulations, I just fail to see the comparison between after-work e-mail and children in mines. I think it's quite ludicrous to compare the two. Firstly, there is little data on how many companies require this sort of employee. My guess is that the few companies that do require it for good reason (would you really be okay with not allowing hospitals to page doctors after hours?). More likely, employees feel pressured when there is little pressure being exerted by the company itself. I've worked in strategy consulting which is well known for how it takes over your life. Most of my colleagues felt a compulsion to respond immediately that I simply never felt. If you listened to how they put it, you'd think God himself were breathing down their neck. This is completely self-imposed. The alternative is to respond when ready and before the deadline, but not feel pressure. > Your view of "just go to the job tree and pick a new job" is cute but completely out of touch. If your choice is between not having a job or responding to e-mail, then legislation isn't the way out. If your job requires this kind of attentiveness, and you have no other choices, making it illegal for your company to require this does not make your life better. It simply makes your job go away. We are seeing this right now with the rise of automation due to the increase in minimum wage. The government needs to focus on giving employees skills so that they too have something to negotiate with. The fact is that an unskilled employee has no bargaining power and is little more than a slave. The government's strategy should be two-fold: (1) invest heavily in making sure every employee has a skill that can be bargained with, and (2) stop subsidizing businesses.

by moate 9y ago

peacetreefrog 9y ago

You could argue that viewing legislation like this as a sort of magic wand, "just pass a law that says nothing bad can happen to you if you don't check email outside of work and that'll fix everything" is even cuter, more out of touch.

moate 9y ago
Oh now who in their right mind said ANYTHING like that anywhere? I've made a LOT of posts on this thread and have very specifically not said that whatsoever because that's stupid. In fact I'll go ahead and quote myself and say "It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction". So yes, I agree with you. Thinking this is wizardry instead of a small step in the right direction would be very out of touch with reality.

tathougies 9y ago

I agree that markets need regulations, I just fail to see the comparison between after-work e-mail and children in mines. I think it's quite ludicrous to compare the two. Firstly, there is little data on how many companies require this sort of employee. My guess is that the few companies that do require it for good reason (would you really be okay with not allowing hospitals to page doctors after hours?). More likely, employees feel pressured when there is little pressure being exerted by the company itself. I've worked in strategy consulting which is well known for how it takes over your life. Most of my colleagues felt a compulsion to respond immediately that I simply never felt. If you listened to how they put it, you'd think God himself were breathing down their neck. This is completely self-imposed. The alternative is to respond when ready and before the deadline, but not feel pressure. > Your view of "just go to the job tree and pick a new job" is cute but completely out of touch. If your choice is between not having a job or responding to e-mail, then legislation isn't the way out. If your job requires this kind of attentiveness, and you have no other choices, making it illegal for your company to require this does not make your life better. It simply makes your job go away. We are seeing this right now with the rise of automation due to the increase in minimum wage. The government needs to focus on giving employees skills so that they too have something to negotiate with. The fact is that an unskilled employee has no bargaining power and is little more than a slave. The government's strategy should be two-fold: (1) invest heavily in making sure every employee has a skill that can be bargained with, and (2) stop subsidizing businesses.