4 ms·

Vice writers are unionized and are thus profiting from pro-union laws that allow them to undermine the contracting rights of their employer and get themselves a

Vice writers are unionized and are thus profiting from pro-union laws that allow them to undermine the contracting rights of their employer and get themselves above-market wages. Therefore the angle they choose for this article is not surprising to me. Most of those working in the media have a major conflict of interest when writing about politics.

harimau777 8y ago
Can you explain what you mean by contracting right?
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  The right to hire whoever you want at whatever terms you want to offer. Collective bargaining mandates for one violate that right. You can't offer an employment contract that doesn't obligate you as an employer to collectively bargain, meaning negotiate with a representative of a collective bargaining unit to the exclusion of all other parties, in the event that a majority of workers in a work unit unionize and demand it. Anything the press commonly defines as a "labor right" is really a restriction on the employer's right to freely contract.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - hedora 8y ago
    > The right to hire whoever you want at whatever terms you want to offer. You are describing the right to own slaves, except that current US law provides slaves with significantly more legal protection than you propose, and the thirteenth amendment limits slavery to criminals. I feel like this should go without saying, but the article is about illegal strikes, and you seem to be advocating for more aggressive enforcement of anti-work-stop laws.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      Making an offer that another person is free to accept or reject has no resemblance to slavery. This kind of inflammatory mischaracterization of what a free market is is unfortunately very common now that millions depend on the rent-seeking that anti-contract-freedom laws enable unionized workers to engage in.
  - harimau777 8y ago
    I see what you are saying; however, I think those restrictions are often necessary due to to the dramatic difference in power between a corporation and an individual employee. Since most people do not have the opportunity to support themselves anymore (because they cannot afford farmland or the capital to start their own business), for most people working for someone else is no longer voluntary. Therefore, I think those people must have the right to negotiate fair* working conditions with their employer. * I realize that the exact definition of what constitutes fair is going to differ between different people and political views. However, I think there are general principles that most people can agree on such as making enough to provide for ones family, a safe work environment, being treated with respect by the employer, and work hours that allow the employee to participate in other aspects of life.
    - tropo 8y ago
      No, "fair" is more like a lack of fraud or coercion. It means that you get what you can manage without those, which is generally the market rate. You may be able to trade off pay, safety, respect, and hours. (give up some of one to get more of another) The deal you get comes from the value you bring. Getting more than your share, for example by coercion against the employer or by defrauding the employer, is definitely not fair.
      - harimau777 8y ago
        I definitely agree that it is legitimate for an individual to trade off certain benefits of a job for others. I think the issue arrises when they either do not have the opportunity to actually make that decision (e.g. if all of the jobs they are able to get lack one of those traits) or if the overall split of benefits between the employer and employee is skewed (e.g. the business becomes more profitable but the increase in profit is not split with the employees).
        tropo 8y ago
        Employees get their wages. They must be paid the market rate no matter if the business is profitable or not. If they aren't paid that, they leave. The business can't force employees to stay and work for less, even if the business is losing money. If the business had to share profit, then it would only be fair that it gets to share losses, forcing employees to stay and work like slaves... but we don't find that to be acceptable. Profit is the dream that drives entrepreneurs to take crazy risks to start businesses. Without that, they would not try, and jobs would not get created. There is some justification for keeping the profit from getting extreme, to keep customers from being hit with abusive monopoly pricing. The least harmful way to do this is by enforcing the existence of competition, breaking up any business that gains excessive market share. One could draw the line at 15% for example, splitting any business with a greater market share. Another possibility is to persuade businesses to split themselves, perhaps via taxes based on market share. A danger is that innovation slows due to businesses avoiding hitting the market share limit.

harimau777 8y ago

Can you explain what you mean by contracting right?

CryptoPunk 8y ago
The right to hire whoever you want at whatever terms you want to offer. Collective bargaining mandates for one violate that right. You can't offer an employment contract that doesn't obligate you as an employer to collectively bargain, meaning negotiate with a representative of a collective bargaining unit to the exclusion of all other parties, in the event that a majority of workers in a work unit unionize and demand it. Anything the press commonly defines as a "labor right" is really a restriction on the employer's right to freely contract.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- hedora 8y ago
  > The right to hire whoever you want at whatever terms you want to offer. You are describing the right to own slaves, except that current US law provides slaves with significantly more legal protection than you propose, and the thirteenth amendment limits slavery to criminals. I feel like this should go without saying, but the article is about illegal strikes, and you seem to be advocating for more aggressive enforcement of anti-work-stop laws.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    Making an offer that another person is free to accept or reject has no resemblance to slavery. This kind of inflammatory mischaracterization of what a free market is is unfortunately very common now that millions depend on the rent-seeking that anti-contract-freedom laws enable unionized workers to engage in.
- harimau777 8y ago
  I see what you are saying; however, I think those restrictions are often necessary due to to the dramatic difference in power between a corporation and an individual employee. Since most people do not have the opportunity to support themselves anymore (because they cannot afford farmland or the capital to start their own business), for most people working for someone else is no longer voluntary. Therefore, I think those people must have the right to negotiate fair* working conditions with their employer. * I realize that the exact definition of what constitutes fair is going to differ between different people and political views. However, I think there are general principles that most people can agree on such as making enough to provide for ones family, a safe work environment, being treated with respect by the employer, and work hours that allow the employee to participate in other aspects of life.
  - tropo 8y ago
    No, "fair" is more like a lack of fraud or coercion. It means that you get what you can manage without those, which is generally the market rate. You may be able to trade off pay, safety, respect, and hours. (give up some of one to get more of another) The deal you get comes from the value you bring. Getting more than your share, for example by coercion against the employer or by defrauding the employer, is definitely not fair.
    - harimau777 8y ago
      I definitely agree that it is legitimate for an individual to trade off certain benefits of a job for others. I think the issue arrises when they either do not have the opportunity to actually make that decision (e.g. if all of the jobs they are able to get lack one of those traits) or if the overall split of benefits between the employer and employee is skewed (e.g. the business becomes more profitable but the increase in profit is not split with the employees).
      - tropo 8y ago
        Employees get their wages. They must be paid the market rate no matter if the business is profitable or not. If they aren't paid that, they leave. The business can't force employees to stay and work for less, even if the business is losing money. If the business had to share profit, then it would only be fair that it gets to share losses, forcing employees to stay and work like slaves... but we don't find that to be acceptable. Profit is the dream that drives entrepreneurs to take crazy risks to start businesses. Without that, they would not try, and jobs would not get created. There is some justification for keeping the profit from getting extreme, to keep customers from being hit with abusive monopoly pricing. The least harmful way to do this is by enforcing the existence of competition, breaking up any business that gains excessive market share. One could draw the line at 15% for example, splitting any business with a greater market share. Another possibility is to persuade businesses to split themselves, perhaps via taxes based on market share. A danger is that innovation slows due to businesses avoiding hitting the market share limit.