3 ms·

I don't think it's wise to be against this law because some people might be limited; by and large, this is a good thing - it means that workers are exploited le

I don't think it's wise to be against this law because some people might be limited; by and large, this is a good thing - it means that workers are exploited less, it means that there will be consequences for those who force workers to work so much overtime in a culture in which you're not seen as being dedicated enough if you refuse to do overtime. I immediately thought "the people you've named would just continue to work anyway, because they're 'the greats'", but I also realised that some of them would need specialised equipment, the sort that would be closed off outside of the hours permitted. Perhaps there should be some system in which such people can apply to use the eqipment outside of hours. But it could be that bosses (or even employees themselves, feeling pressured) would apply to use them, citing personal reasons rather than "work reasons". But in the end, I really don't see it as a bad thing that "execs can go to prison"; I think that unless there are serious consequences, and the law only has monetary fines (which matter less and less so long as they aren't large proportions of revenue) then the law will be skirted or simply violated. In the end, I really think this law does more good than it does potential harm. Overwork is a serious issue, but your proposal that we shouldn't have it raises important questions. Employers discovered in the 20th century that it would be efficient for the direction of the employee's conatus aligns with the company's, such that the employee will feel joy and even want to work longer hours - this of course being more effective than the older system (usually employed in manual labour with few levels of management) of taking advantage of the basal desire for material reproduction. With longer hours, it's easier for an employer to push this desire to the employee. And by the way, I was much more convinced of your argument with regard to people like McCarthy, Feynman, Einstiein and Turing than our friends pg and sama :-)

sokoloff 8y ago
> I don't think it's wise to be against this law because some people might be limited; by and large, this is a good thing I don't like infringing the freedom of individual workers to contract as they see fit. Pursuit of happiness and all that... (I'm also opposed to minimum wage and pro-sustenance-UBI.)
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  Although I doubt we'd come to any agreement (I don't subscribe to liberalism nor the same ideas of contextual freedom you do), I'm curious: what would you say about the freedom to sell oneself into slavery? Is there such thing as "voluntary servitude" to you? I think a more nuanced view is required: how do these freedoms arise, what makes one person work for another, is the subjecitvist-individualist philosophy the end of liberal politics, how do desires form and conatus aligns under modern capitalism, and does the pursuit of happiness entail the requirement for the desire to employ others for a goal that they don't have an interest in (in the Spinozist sense of desire), what is the role of money (or money-capital) (and its pursuit) in the desires, and what role does the education system play in nurturing such desires? All these are questions of interest, and I don't think they can be whisked away with a sentence accusing the law of "infringing freedom". There are much greater injustices with regard to our freedom right in front of us in this mode of economic organisation.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    Stopping me from choosing to work 60 hours a week in order to get myself and family ahead seems quite different from stopping me selling myself into slavery, so I'll assume the question was merely exploratory. I don't believe that selling oneself into slavery ought to be legal. I do think that educational loans are fairly close to "voluntary servitude" and that educational lending ought to be legal.
    - claudiawerner 8y ago
      Of course it's different to sell yourself into slavery, but it still asks the question: are you in favour of "the freedom for individual workers to contract as they see fit", or are you not? I'd say that the qualitative difference between longer and longer work weeks ("freely contracted", as you might say) and slavery tends to zero. The fact that you need to work 60 hours a week to get you and your family ahead is precisely the problem that the law is trying to solve - and any social law, for that matter. It's a worker's rights law, set amidst late capitalism in a modern "democratic" country, as such it will target two things: allowing employers to keep employing people (but not excessively) and allowing employees to survive (but not "for nothing"). This is the goal of any capitalist mode of organisation, and this is but a tug of the rope in favour of labour rather than capital, but capitalism is characterised by the endless tug here and there between capital and labour.
swfsql 8y ago
>by and large, this is a good thing - it means that workers are exploited less then just fire them already, huh? zero exploitation!

sokoloff 8y ago

> I don't think it's wise to be against this law because some people might be limited; by and large, this is a good thing I don't like infringing the freedom of individual workers to contract as they see fit. Pursuit of happiness and all that... (I'm also opposed to minimum wage and pro-sustenance-UBI.)

claudiawerner 8y ago
Although I doubt we'd come to any agreement (I don't subscribe to liberalism nor the same ideas of contextual freedom you do), I'm curious: what would you say about the freedom to sell oneself into slavery? Is there such thing as "voluntary servitude" to you? I think a more nuanced view is required: how do these freedoms arise, what makes one person work for another, is the subjecitvist-individualist philosophy the end of liberal politics, how do desires form and conatus aligns under modern capitalism, and does the pursuit of happiness entail the requirement for the desire to employ others for a goal that they don't have an interest in (in the Spinozist sense of desire), what is the role of money (or money-capital) (and its pursuit) in the desires, and what role does the education system play in nurturing such desires? All these are questions of interest, and I don't think they can be whisked away with a sentence accusing the law of "infringing freedom". There are much greater injustices with regard to our freedom right in front of us in this mode of economic organisation.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  Stopping me from choosing to work 60 hours a week in order to get myself and family ahead seems quite different from stopping me selling myself into slavery, so I'll assume the question was merely exploratory. I don't believe that selling oneself into slavery ought to be legal. I do think that educational loans are fairly close to "voluntary servitude" and that educational lending ought to be legal.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    Of course it's different to sell yourself into slavery, but it still asks the question: are you in favour of "the freedom for individual workers to contract as they see fit", or are you not? I'd say that the qualitative difference between longer and longer work weeks ("freely contracted", as you might say) and slavery tends to zero. The fact that you need to work 60 hours a week to get you and your family ahead is precisely the problem that the law is trying to solve - and any social law, for that matter. It's a worker's rights law, set amidst late capitalism in a modern "democratic" country, as such it will target two things: allowing employers to keep employing people (but not excessively) and allowing employees to survive (but not "for nothing"). This is the goal of any capitalist mode of organisation, and this is but a tug of the rope in favour of labour rather than capital, but capitalism is characterised by the endless tug here and there between capital and labour.

swfsql 8y ago

>by and large, this is a good thing - it means that workers are exploited less then just fire them already, huh? zero exploitation!