4 ms·

-

by adnam 19y ago

byrneseyeview 19y ago
"A union brings democratic practices to the work environment." Do workplaces need democratic practices? I've never worked for a company that threatened my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness -- mostly, they tend to secure the blessings of (financial) liberty to myself and my posterity by paying me an amount that I find satisfactory. If they didn't, I could always cry oppression, but it would be more mature for me to just find a better job. And if I had a higher estimation of my worth as an employee than any employer, I might consider my own estimate incorrect. It's a fallacy to apply your political principles to anything outside of politics. If you want to work for a business that runs itself like a country, work for GM (and pray for your pension).
- adnam 19y ago
  -
  - byrneseyeview 19y ago
    Democracy is probably useful for any institution with absolute power -- if there's a group that has the right to imprison or kill me, I'd rather they derive that right from the will of the people. But if all an institution can do is give me money in exchange for work, or give me stuff I want in exchange for money, democracy is an imposition that makes them less free. If a transaction can only happen with the consent of person A and person B, why on earth would you want Mob C to interpolate itself between them? The only positive results from that would flow to members of C or to parties that have coopted it.
- lupin_sansei 19y ago
  The democracy in the workplace is you are free to leave and join another company at any time. This is a good thing. Any attempt to make it harder for employers to employ people always pushes back by raising unemployment. (See the minimum wage)
natrius 19y ago
A safe work environment should be guaranteed by legislation. Beyond that, if you don't like your job, you should find a new one. Democratic practices are completely unrelated to a work environment. No one is ruling over you. You're free to go. Granted, switching jobs isn't a simple thing to do, mainly because our labor market is so inefficient. There are other things attached to having a job, like healthcare, that complicate things. If only we separated healthcare from employment somehow... Out of curiosity, what gains did you get from forming a union?
- byrneseyeview 19y ago
  "A safe work environment should be guaranteed by legislation." You're confusing actions and goals. If we pass legislation banning unsafe environments, all we're saying is "Dangerous work should only be done by criminals." If you think coal mines and slaughterhouses are bad now, just imagine how much worse they'd be if they were run by the mob.[1] They might even be as dangerous as mines in the kind of country that does try to guarantee workers' safety and happiness through legislation ( http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/13/content_391242.htm http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/13/content_391242.htm ) [1] We've passed laws that say "Nobody should smoke pot," but the effect of those laws is, essentially, "People should only buy their pot from someone who has little to lose from committing additional crimes, such as someone already involved in illicit traffic and already able to extralegally enforce illegal agreements.
  - natrius 19y ago
    I didn't say that dangerous work should be banned. When a job has risks, the necessary precautions should be taken to minimize that risk. That's what a union would be asking for in negotiations, right? They shouldn't have to.
    - byrneseyeview 19y ago
      At what point is a union or a legislature necessary, here? If I want to do something dangerous to myself, should I leave it up to Washington's Finest to assess the risks for me? Why on earth would I do that? They have every incentive to be cautious (they'll get blamed if they okay risks and I still get hurt) and no reason not to be (if my work is approved and I'm unhurt, I get the benefits; if it isn't approved, we'll never know if they were wrong). Regulators have less information than entrepreneurs. Regulators have a bias towards caution; entrepreneurs would suffer for it. So you're advocating a system in which uninformed people with a vested interest in my failure are responsible for choosing whether or not I have a chance to succeed. I'm afraid you need more of a defense for that than a smug smattering of "should"s.
abstractbill 19y ago
"...cannot expect management to treat everyone equally and fairly..." The best manager I've ever worked for once told me that he believed in treating people fairly, but definitely not equally. I think he had a good pont.
Tichy 19y ago
Why would it not be democratic enough that you can quit your job if you are unhappy with the work conditions? Of course there may be the concern that you would have no opportunity to find another job. However, then I don't understand why it is deemed fair for society to dump the social responsibility on the enterprises. Is it the companies fault that you cannot find another job, or is it maybe your "fault" that you lack the qualifications? Ultimately society pays anyway: if the company has to overpay the inefficient workers, it's products will get more expensive, rest of society pays. I think it would be cleaner to just have society pay directly, which might enable economic pressure against the inefficiency, too (if society pays, the problem is open and can be tackled). Worst case is the whole company goes out of business because it cannot compete anymore.

by adnam 19y ago

"A union brings democratic practices to the work environment." Do workplaces need democratic practices? I've never worked for a company that threatened my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness -- mostly, they tend to secure the blessings of (financial) liberty to myself and my posterity by paying me an amount that I find satisfactory. If they didn't, I could always cry oppression, but it would be more mature for me to just find a better job. And if I had a higher estimation of my worth as an employee than any employer, I might consider my own estimate incorrect. It's a fallacy to apply your political principles to anything outside of politics. If you want to work for a business that runs itself like a country, work for GM (and pray for your pension).

adnam 19y ago
-
- byrneseyeview 19y ago
  Democracy is probably useful for any institution with absolute power -- if there's a group that has the right to imprison or kill me, I'd rather they derive that right from the will of the people. But if all an institution can do is give me money in exchange for work, or give me stuff I want in exchange for money, democracy is an imposition that makes them less free. If a transaction can only happen with the consent of person A and person B, why on earth would you want Mob C to interpolate itself between them? The only positive results from that would flow to members of C or to parties that have coopted it.
lupin_sansei 19y ago
The democracy in the workplace is you are free to leave and join another company at any time. This is a good thing. Any attempt to make it harder for employers to employ people always pushes back by raising unemployment. (See the minimum wage)

natrius 19y ago

A safe work environment should be guaranteed by legislation. Beyond that, if you don't like your job, you should find a new one. Democratic practices are completely unrelated to a work environment. No one is ruling over you. You're free to go. Granted, switching jobs isn't a simple thing to do, mainly because our labor market is so inefficient. There are other things attached to having a job, like healthcare, that complicate things. If only we separated healthcare from employment somehow... Out of curiosity, what gains did you get from forming a union?

byrneseyeview 19y ago
"A safe work environment should be guaranteed by legislation." You're confusing actions and goals. If we pass legislation banning unsafe environments, all we're saying is "Dangerous work should only be done by criminals." If you think coal mines and slaughterhouses are bad now, just imagine how much worse they'd be if they were run by the mob.[1] They might even be as dangerous as mines in the kind of country that does try to guarantee workers' safety and happiness through legislation ( http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/13/content_391242.htm http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/13/content_391242.htm ) [1] We've passed laws that say "Nobody should smoke pot," but the effect of those laws is, essentially, "People should only buy their pot from someone who has little to lose from committing additional crimes, such as someone already involved in illicit traffic and already able to extralegally enforce illegal agreements.
- natrius 19y ago
  I didn't say that dangerous work should be banned. When a job has risks, the necessary precautions should be taken to minimize that risk. That's what a union would be asking for in negotiations, right? They shouldn't have to.
  - byrneseyeview 19y ago
    At what point is a union or a legislature necessary, here? If I want to do something dangerous to myself, should I leave it up to Washington's Finest to assess the risks for me? Why on earth would I do that? They have every incentive to be cautious (they'll get blamed if they okay risks and I still get hurt) and no reason not to be (if my work is approved and I'm unhurt, I get the benefits; if it isn't approved, we'll never know if they were wrong). Regulators have less information than entrepreneurs. Regulators have a bias towards caution; entrepreneurs would suffer for it. So you're advocating a system in which uninformed people with a vested interest in my failure are responsible for choosing whether or not I have a chance to succeed. I'm afraid you need more of a defense for that than a smug smattering of "should"s.

abstractbill 19y ago

"...cannot expect management to treat everyone equally and fairly..." The best manager I've ever worked for once told me that he believed in treating people fairly, but definitely not equally. I think he had a good pont.

Tichy 19y ago

Why would it not be democratic enough that you can quit your job if you are unhappy with the work conditions? Of course there may be the concern that you would have no opportunity to find another job. However, then I don't understand why it is deemed fair for society to dump the social responsibility on the enterprises. Is it the companies fault that you cannot find another job, or is it maybe your "fault" that you lack the qualifications? Ultimately society pays anyway: if the company has to overpay the inefficient workers, it's products will get more expensive, rest of society pays. I think it would be cleaner to just have society pay directly, which might enable economic pressure against the inefficiency, too (if society pays, the problem is open and can be tackled). Worst case is the whole company goes out of business because it cannot compete anymore.