3 ms·

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 comple

by natrius 20y 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 20y 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 20y 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 20y 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.
    - jason13 20y ago
      That argument would make sense, if you were refering to say someone like evil-knivel, who may be compensated heavily for making extremely dangerous stunts. But in reality I imagine your talking about coal miners, who are not in the coal mining for the thrill of the mine, or the thrill of fame and money. But are in it to make ends meat.
      - byrneseyeview 20y ago
        And why on earth would you want to restrict the economic freedom of someone desperate enough to do that kind of work? If the money isn't worth the risk, they know it better than you do -- and if you disagree with them, it's probably because you're applying your assumptions to their situation, not that you know more about mining safety than they do.
        jason13 20y ago
        I love the intellectual lengths people will goto to justify their own greed. This is a classic argument you are making. It makes me richer to exploit workers. But if i don't exploit my workers than I will be denying my workers their economic right to be exploited. So you see I am only exploiting my workers to help my workers, because my workers want to have the freedom to be exploited, really they want to be exploited, it makes them feel more free. Wow I am such a nice guy. I am spreading freedom.
        lupin_sansei 20y ago
        How is employing people exploiting them? (In the bad sense of the word "exploit") The employees freely agreed to come and work for you in exchange for a certain amount of money, and they are free to leave at any time. If they were worth any more money than they were getting paid then they would change to a higher paying job.
        jason13 20y ago
        Well this goes into the whole philosophical question of the word "freedom" and "free will"... It all depends what you mean by the word "freely". But unless you are actually rich, you don't really have the freedom to not get a job. So I would not describe this as purely a contractual agreement entered into by parties freely.
adnam 20y ago
"Democratic practices are completely unrelated to a work environment." Maybe to YOUR work environment, but not all. What gains did we get? Well, for one, a voice so that we could communicate with management in an orgainzed way, just as management generally do with the labourforce. Before, each person who had a problem was isolated and dealing with it alone. Then add in the free legal representation, negotiation advice, free training etc etc
- natrius 20y ago
  In a democracy, people run things. In a corporation, the owners run things. I'm not saying that they should run things without thinking about what their employees want, I'm just saying that by definition, a corporation isn't a democracy. What kind of issues were there that the union dealt with? And "free"? Aren't there union dues?
- webwright 20y ago
  "Then add in the free legal representation, negotiation advice, free training etc etc" Wow. Free? Really? Where do you think the money comes from? The union has operative expenses that it pays for with the dues you pay. You PAY for those things and the overhead it takes to support them. Your employer probably pays a bit for them too, and as a result probably increases prices or decreases employee benefits to compensate. Try owning and running a business sometime and tell me how much you think it would benefit you (and your business) to be "democratized".

by natrius 20y ago

byrneseyeview 20y 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 20y 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 20y 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.
  - jason13 20y ago
    That argument would make sense, if you were refering to say someone like evil-knivel, who may be compensated heavily for making extremely dangerous stunts. But in reality I imagine your talking about coal miners, who are not in the coal mining for the thrill of the mine, or the thrill of fame and money. But are in it to make ends meat.
    - byrneseyeview 20y ago
      And why on earth would you want to restrict the economic freedom of someone desperate enough to do that kind of work? If the money isn't worth the risk, they know it better than you do -- and if you disagree with them, it's probably because you're applying your assumptions to their situation, not that you know more about mining safety than they do.
      - jason13 20y ago
        I love the intellectual lengths people will goto to justify their own greed. This is a classic argument you are making. It makes me richer to exploit workers. But if i don't exploit my workers than I will be denying my workers their economic right to be exploited. So you see I am only exploiting my workers to help my workers, because my workers want to have the freedom to be exploited, really they want to be exploited, it makes them feel more free. Wow I am such a nice guy. I am spreading freedom.
        lupin_sansei 20y ago
        How is employing people exploiting them? (In the bad sense of the word "exploit") The employees freely agreed to come and work for you in exchange for a certain amount of money, and they are free to leave at any time. If they were worth any more money than they were getting paid then they would change to a higher paying job.
        jason13 20y ago
        Well this goes into the whole philosophical question of the word "freedom" and "free will"... It all depends what you mean by the word "freely". But unless you are actually rich, you don't really have the freedom to not get a job. So I would not describe this as purely a contractual agreement entered into by parties freely.

adnam 20y ago

"Democratic practices are completely unrelated to a work environment." Maybe to YOUR work environment, but not all. What gains did we get? Well, for one, a voice so that we could communicate with management in an orgainzed way, just as management generally do with the labourforce. Before, each person who had a problem was isolated and dealing with it alone. Then add in the free legal representation, negotiation advice, free training etc etc

natrius 20y ago
In a democracy, people run things. In a corporation, the owners run things. I'm not saying that they should run things without thinking about what their employees want, I'm just saying that by definition, a corporation isn't a democracy. What kind of issues were there that the union dealt with? And "free"? Aren't there union dues?
webwright 20y ago
"Then add in the free legal representation, negotiation advice, free training etc etc" Wow. Free? Really? Where do you think the money comes from? The union has operative expenses that it pays for with the dues you pay. You PAY for those things and the overhead it takes to support them. Your employer probably pays a bit for them too, and as a result probably increases prices or decreases employee benefits to compensate. Try owning and running a business sometime and tell me how much you think it would benefit you (and your business) to be "democratized".