3 ms·

because employees have inherently more power then workers in suchs an example. Workers need wages and money to survive in the economy, and usually have little n

because employees have inherently more power then workers in suchs an example. Workers need wages and money to survive in the economy, and usually have little negotiation power compared to (massive) companies. You could argue we could go back to the 1800's in terms of labour standards, but don't be suprised when workers simply decide to kill their bosses and companies retaliating[1]. Diminishing labour rights is just asking for another violent class struggle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars

ttoinou 8y ago
Why would they have more power ? Employees have the power to say no, shop somewhere else, to do a shitty job / not follow orders and let the employer figure it out, quit when they want, leave the employers without the job being done overnight. They also receive something very defined and predictable (money defined in the contract) in exchange for some vague objectives where the employers needs to constantly check if the company mission is being fulfilled, and constantly update this mission. Workers need wages and money to survive in the economy And employers don't need wages and money to "survive in the economy" ?
- czep 8y ago
  > And employers don't need wages and money to "survive in the economy" ? Not if they inherited it. The key idea here is asymmetry of power. When people are desperate enough that they would take a sub-minimum wage job, this doesn't necessarily imply a "voluntary exchange". If you're facing starvation or medical bankruptcy, you are essentially being coerced to take any job you can find.
  - ttoinou 8y ago
    If you're worried about people being in bad situations, why do you think laws that would prevent them from improving their situation is a good idea ? What do you do with those that are not in this situation, yet still interested in the jobs you judge not good ? How can you make that judgment for others ?

ttoinou 8y ago

Why would they have more power ? Employees have the power to say no, shop somewhere else, to do a shitty job / not follow orders and let the employer figure it out, quit when they want, leave the employers without the job being done overnight. They also receive something very defined and predictable (money defined in the contract) in exchange for some vague objectives where the employers needs to constantly check if the company mission is being fulfilled, and constantly update this mission. Workers need wages and money to survive in the economy And employers don't need wages and money to "survive in the economy" ?

czep 8y ago
> And employers don't need wages and money to "survive in the economy" ? Not if they inherited it. The key idea here is asymmetry of power. When people are desperate enough that they would take a sub-minimum wage job, this doesn't necessarily imply a "voluntary exchange". If you're facing starvation or medical bankruptcy, you are essentially being coerced to take any job you can find.
- ttoinou 8y ago
  If you're worried about people being in bad situations, why do you think laws that would prevent them from improving their situation is a good idea ? What do you do with those that are not in this situation, yet still interested in the jobs you judge not good ? How can you make that judgment for others ?