2 ms·

I don't understand this legislation or this perspective. If it is the job of the government to provide a strong safetey net, then it shouldn't be incumbent on p

by nappy 8y ago

I don't understand this legislation or this perspective. If it is the job of the government to provide a strong safetey net, then it shouldn't be incumbent on private employers to do so. Why should Walmart be tasked with providing a complete livelihood for its employees? If a job is beneficially for the economy, and individual, and an employer, though not enough to keep someone out of poverty - this is precisely when government programs should fill in the gap. And I would think should be the perspective of someone who calls themselves a "Democratic Socialist." A huge part of the problem with how healthcare and labor benefits are handled in the United States is exactly this - that they are far to tied to an individual's job. Divorcing them actually helps all parties. Most developed nations operate this way. Naming this legislation after Bezos is petty and vindictive. It's below the office of a Senator, and a bad precedent to set to using the power of lawmaking to single out individuals.

Udik 8y ago
> Why should Walmart be tasked with providing a complete livelihood for its employees? I don't think it should; but on the other end, why would people work for Walmart if the salary it offers is not enough to survive? And why should Walmart rely on the subsidies offered by the state to integrate the shitty wages it's paying? In other words, the employees work for you, you are the one who should pay them- subsidies are altering this balance. (Ah, and tips too, my other little obsession. Otherwise I'll bring my own waiter, thank you). Of course the state should provide a "safety net"- which for me includes full, free, high quality medical assistance, education, and maybe some for of low rent housing. But that's about it.
- epicureanideal 8y ago
  Education is a tricky one. In general I tend to agree, but distributing the cost of a person's decision to get a 4 year degree in Photography, and then get a job at Starbucks they could've gotten without that degree, seems unjust and unwise. And who decides which schools lead to good outcomes? A lot of the "for profit" schools are only a little better than diploma mills.
bertil 8y ago
It is up to the government, in certain political philosophy, to make sure that its citizens have a livelihood. How do those government pay for it is the object of taxation: hardly any government extract enough value from the service it provides to pay for them, so they never “pay for it”; they organise transfers. Sanders point is that the current system is de-facto redistributive, in favour of companies who use temporary workers at a large scale and with patterns that appear to be designed to evade regulations on employee protection. Say, there are obligations that kick in when an employee works for more than 40 hours per week; employers who have thousands of employees tasked to work only 39 hours could obviously hire almost as many and be responsible for sick pay, holidays, health insurance. You response is probably that this means the union decision was badly designed, and no one who knows anything about labor negotiations would disagree with you. It is a case of the spirit of the law versus its letter. I’m sure you want to say that this is not the company’s role to write the law. That would make their lobbyist laugh a bit, but let’s assume this is true. Sanders is precisely trying to fit one to the other. What constitutes a clear breach (and how the numbers quoted in the project are established) is probably a nightmare of analytical ad-hoc decisions, but it’s probably more honest than refusing to support financially basic human needs from people who, de-facto, work full time for you.

by nappy 8y ago

Udik 8y ago

> Why should Walmart be tasked with providing a complete livelihood for its employees? I don't think it should; but on the other end, why would people work for Walmart if the salary it offers is not enough to survive? And why should Walmart rely on the subsidies offered by the state to integrate the shitty wages it's paying? In other words, the employees work for you, you are the one who should pay them- subsidies are altering this balance. (Ah, and tips too, my other little obsession. Otherwise I'll bring my own waiter, thank you). Of course the state should provide a "safety net"- which for me includes full, free, high quality medical assistance, education, and maybe some for of low rent housing. But that's about it.

epicureanideal 8y ago
Education is a tricky one. In general I tend to agree, but distributing the cost of a person's decision to get a 4 year degree in Photography, and then get a job at Starbucks they could've gotten without that degree, seems unjust and unwise. And who decides which schools lead to good outcomes? A lot of the "for profit" schools are only a little better than diploma mills.

bertil 8y ago

It is up to the government, in certain political philosophy, to make sure that its citizens have a livelihood. How do those government pay for it is the object of taxation: hardly any government extract enough value from the service it provides to pay for them, so they never “pay for it”; they organise transfers. Sanders point is that the current system is de-facto redistributive, in favour of companies who use temporary workers at a large scale and with patterns that appear to be designed to evade regulations on employee protection. Say, there are obligations that kick in when an employee works for more than 40 hours per week; employers who have thousands of employees tasked to work only 39 hours could obviously hire almost as many and be responsible for sick pay, holidays, health insurance. You response is probably that this means the union decision was badly designed, and no one who knows anything about labor negotiations would disagree with you. It is a case of the spirit of the law versus its letter. I’m sure you want to say that this is not the company’s role to write the law. That would make their lobbyist laugh a bit, but let’s assume this is true. Sanders is precisely trying to fit one to the other. What constitutes a clear breach (and how the numbers quoted in the project are established) is probably a nightmare of analytical ad-hoc decisions, but it’s probably more honest than refusing to support financially basic human needs from people who, de-facto, work full time for you.