4 ms·
My argument is that no one should be forced to do this. It should be heavily automated at the very least.
by TomMarius 8y ago
My argument is that no one should be forced to do this. It should be heavily automated at the very least.
- eropple 8y agoSure, nobody should. But we don't live in that world, and so it is not useful to form political positions off of things that don't exist. In the real world? If you run a corporation, you are afforded, by society, extremely powerful and beneficial rights, and as part of the social contract you should be handling these sorts of affairs on behalf of the people who make you your money. It is mere decency, and "well employees should do it" without that automation that we both agree needs to exist--but, rather critically, tends to always be step two for certain folks, after "set them off on their ice floe", not step one--is morally super not great.
- everdev 8y agoOr, just make it easy for the contractor to manage their own affairs. It's not like the heavy burden has to be carried by the company or the worker, we can eliminate the heavy burden itself.
- eropple 8y agoI think I just agreed with that? What I am saying is that it is all-too-convenient to say "oh, we'll eliminate that heavy burden we are now placing on you" and then, once it is so placed, proceed to do exactly nothing about it because, hey--the owners are happy, and who cares what anyone else thinks once they're happy? (This is one of many reasons why the Ubers of the world are so nasty; they shirk their responsibilities and leave their de-facto employees holding the bag.) To do justice, one must eliminate that heavy burden, and only the ownership class has sufficient political pull to ever really do anything about it--so they need to continue feeling the pain of it until they do.