3 ms·
You seem to be implying a false choice here. Specifically that we (the government is comprised of individuals) can not engage both in labor protections at the s
by ixtli 7y ago
You seem to be implying a false choice here. Specifically that we (the government is comprised of individuals) can not engage both in labor protections at the same time as we attempt to create a universal health care system.
- matz1 7y agoI'm questioning the current convoluted way government have to do to protect worker. What is the purpose of the labor protection in the first place ? To help the worker right ? Then why not just directly help the worker. Instead of forcing company to provide health care to their worker, why not the government itself provide health care directly.
- asdfgasd 7y agoRight, but you're questioning a position that doesn't really exist. Pretty much everyone that is a strong advocate for labour protections would also like universal healthcare, it's just much more likely we can achieve labour protection in the short term than universal healthcare.
- matz1 7y agoI'm arguing that this kind of labour protections of changing employee classification rule is a weird thing to fight for. Just because the fix is easier and more likely to achieve but if it doesn't address the core issue, its useless.
- asdfgasd 7y agoSure, but if that is your position you should go out and advocate for this better thing instead of bemoaning the efforts other people are making as misplaced. This shows up anytime people try to make some sort of progressive improvement to society, people come out of the woodwork to complain that it's not the right solution, without doing anything (other than complaining I guess) to motivate a better solution.
- matz1 7y agoWell, if not me, at very least maybe someone out there that read this will be inspired to do something about it. Still better than not saying anything.