3 ms·
Agreed. I can swallow these "the company owes us something" arguments for businesses so large they make up the entire employment for a city, but not cases like
by menacingly 8y ago
Agreed. I can swallow these "the company owes us something" arguments for businesses so large they make up the entire employment for a city, but not cases like this.
It's unsettling that now every business has a big moral obligation to make sure employees make the best choices for themselves.
- shabble 8y agoAlternatively, every business (or rather, the people who operate and control that business) have a moral obligation not to unreasonably exploit their employees. I would expect that to be a fairly common sentiment/belief (though I might be wrong). It comes down to the particular definition of 'unreasonably' that is being used, which different groups can and do disagree about.
- menacingly 8y agoThat's fair. For instance, company stores in mining towns were clearly designed to trap employees into a lifetime of debt with almost no personal choice in the matter. It's the choice aspect I focus on. No one is forcing them, and it's borderline elitist of someone with a nice job to say "that's gross work and I think it should go away so things are less gross", along the lines of thinking families straddling the poverty line should simply "eat more quality food"