5 ms·

I think this is a situation where employees need to leave the company. We vote with our choices. If we don't deem this to be appropriate, we must respond in kin

I think this is a situation where employees need to leave the company. We vote with our choices. If we don't deem this to be appropriate, we must respond in kind. It's not simple and not everyone has the choice, but for those that can, should.

javajosh 6y ago
Or regulate. Consider that your same argument was applies to e.g. the 40-hour workweek, and workplace safety standards in the US. We quite rightly decided not to leave such things to the market because in practice the labor market is FAR from perfect.
- loa_in_ 6y ago
  Regulation is the opposite of exercising freedom you already have
  - js8 6y ago
    I downvoted you, because I think this is not true in general. Regulation can actually increase the freedom. It is a concept in philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance And it's also not true in particular, you might happen to be in a group which benefits from given regulation. Hopefully, in a democratic society, the group that is negatively affected (if any) is as small as possible.
    - subhobroto 6y ago
      .. and I downvoted you, because it absolutely true by definition. Regulation, by definition, decreases freedom. That's the whole point of regulation - to threaten with violence, acts that people have agreed are not a good idea. If software engineers were regulated under IEEE, the freedoms of software engineers would decrease not increase. I quote from the article you linked: "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Regulation, by definition, is intolerance. For example - the minimum wage regulation. You have now removed the freedom of an untrained, unemployed person to sell their labor at a lower floor which was their only way to gain employment when there's a trained but unemployed person willing to also work for minimum wage!
      - germinalphrase 6y ago
        Your perception of definition is not universal.
      - tkfu 6y ago
        You've got a pretty simplistic view of freedom there, bud. Regulations often increase freedom for some while decreasing it for others. Constitutions are just regulations for government--does preventing the government from infringing on the right to free speech, for example, increase or decrease freedom? Employers have immense power over their workers, and regulation is one of the tools societies can use to make sure that power isn't abused.
        subhobroto 6y ago
        Regulation, by definition, decreases freedom. The word regulate, in regulation literally means "decrease freedom". In physics, a regulator is used to decrease freedom. That's why regulators are used in the first place. > Regulations often increase freedom for some while decreasing it for others Again, regulations can only decrease freedom. It does not make sense to "increase" something that already exists. The freedom to live does not make you more alive than what you already are. > Constitutions are just regulations for government--does preventing the government from infringing on the right to free speech, for example, increase or decrease freedom? The concept of free speech is innate and available everywhere, including countries that does not recognize free speech. Free speech is an inalienable right that every person is born with. It does not require someone else to grant or validate it. All that the first amendment to the Constitution does is _recognize_ (not increase) your freedom to speak against the "government". That is it. The "government" still can jail you or even kill you. All that a country that recognizes free speech promises is that after the deed is done, it will bring that misdeed to justice and hopefully right that wrong. If that was not the case, the courts would be way less crowded than it already is. Also, first amendment to the Constitution does not apply to private citizens. If you suddenly started to yell at your neighbor's lawn, not matter how well placed and logical your arguments are, you will still get booted with no legal recourse. The only thing that is left is if this was the government that booted you out, you can take them to court and expect to win if you have a valid case. There can be no such expectation in a country that does not recognize free speech.
  - subhobroto 6y ago
    Spot on. I am so surprised you've been downvoted to hell. Sometimes it seems basic economics is an alien concept.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      Because you're applying a definition of freedom so absolutely and narrowly that it ceases to be useful. Assault being illegal increases my freedom because I can freely walk down the street without threat of harm. Prohibiting outside doors from being locked in a factory increases my freedom as a worker to leave whenever I choose. And theoretically at an absolute minimum any time you see a prisoners dilemma regulation is how you prevent it and make sure that everyone gets their preferred outcome. If your definition of freedom can't explain why voluntary enslavement makes people less free then it's useless.
      - subhobroto 6y ago
        > And theoretically at an absolute minimum any time you see a prisoners dilemma regulation is how you prevent it and make sure that everyone gets their preferred outcome. I can assure you that not everyone is getting their preferred outcome. That's why the term "prisoners" instead of "willing teammates" are used here. > Prohibiting outside doors from being locked in a factory increases my freedom as a worker to leave whenever I choose. As a worker you always can leave whenever you choose. Past. Present. Future. That does not mean you get to keep your job doing that. Slaves too had the freedom to leave whenever they chose unless they were in chains. The only issue was the enforcement of certain labor contracts that have since been deemed illegal. To clarify, the slaves were treated as property just like you now treat your pets, in this day and age. If your pet was to flee you would capture it and offer rewards for its re-capture. The concept of it is still alive in this day and age. It's just not phrased in those specific terms. Your mention of voluntary enslavement indicates you are well aware of what I mentioned and how modern society has just devised new means of enslavement while being compliant with anti-slavery regulations. > Assault being illegal increases my freedom because I can freely walk down the street without threat of harm. Absolutely not. Making something illegal absolutely does not shield you against harm. Making something legal absolutely does not shield you against harm either. If you exercised your right of freedom of speech in San Francisco and serenaded Trump, you will see what I mean. There is no magic cloak that protects you from "illegal" things. If someone shot you with a machine gun - the former being a criminal activity with various levels of prosecution and the later being literally illegal in most practical sense in the U.S. - you are still shot and injured - illegal or not. You are still hurt or dead. The only concern at that point is whether the perpetrator is going to be first caught, and then prosecuted under the laws that make their activity liable for prosecution. If they run away, tough luck - illegal and all that. If you are a terrorist on the run, assault is no longer off the table. Saddam and Osama can speak a few words about that. Any kind of weapons are illegal in Mexico, so it assault. Yet people die of both in Mexico. Fact remains you are still hurt or dead irregardless of the agility of it. You dont have the ability to arise from the ashes even if the method of your injury/mortality was illegal. Physics and biology don't consult the roster of human idiosyncrasies. They follow the rules of science, illegal or not. The moon rotated around the earth well before, during it was illegal to do so and it continues to.
  - smaddox 6y ago
    One person's rights/freedoms are another person's responsibility. There can be no freedom without responsibility. Regulation is legally enforced responsibility.
    - subhobroto 6y ago
      > One person's rights/freedoms are another person's responsibility yes > There can be no freedom without responsibility. yes so as I like to say it - freedom is anything but free > Regulation is legally enforced responsibility. Yes! The issue I have with regulation is it requires enforcement to be truly useful and part of that requires the person seeking enforcement to yield their freedom to the enforcing authority to kick in. Yet people seem to believe that regulation is this magic pixe dust that grants everyone special powers. That's crazy talk! I tried to make the point here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23169673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23169673
brenden2 6y ago
A lot of people aren't in a position where they can quit their job and spend a few months looking for a new one. And in the US there's no safety net.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Frost1x 6y ago
While there's some power in voting with your choices, it's not really voting because a true vote with your choice must occur without being under duress or leveraged. When it comes to employment, unless you're swimming in money and are basically just working for the sole purpose that you enjoy it, you're leveraged into adjusting your vote accordingly to your best option. When true competition exists and your labor easily transfers, then by all means, select employers with reasonable practices. Relatively few people get to completely pick where they want to work and for what position they work. Most of us who aren't the top say 5% in our field pick a few handfuls and take a shotgun approach to see which opportunity lands. If none of those options land, we move to options we don't like because not working isn't a viable option. Right now with unemployment rates skyrocketing, you have even less flexibility because labor is even more leveraged and have to cave into more and more policies like this. The only way to protect labor in these situations, aside from organized labor unions, is creating enforceable regulatory protections for labor.
ahelwer 6y ago
While this is certainly one method, it is not the only one. Change from within is possible and requires organizing with your colleagues. Otherwise we become like locusts, forever driven from place to place in search of ever-shrinking fertile land.

javajosh 6y ago

Or regulate. Consider that your same argument was applies to e.g. the 40-hour workweek, and workplace safety standards in the US. We quite rightly decided not to leave such things to the market because in practice the labor market is FAR from perfect.

loa_in_ 6y ago
Regulation is the opposite of exercising freedom you already have
- js8 6y ago
  I downvoted you, because I think this is not true in general. Regulation can actually increase the freedom. It is a concept in philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance And it's also not true in particular, you might happen to be in a group which benefits from given regulation. Hopefully, in a democratic society, the group that is negatively affected (if any) is as small as possible.
  - subhobroto 6y ago
    .. and I downvoted you, because it absolutely true by definition. Regulation, by definition, decreases freedom. That's the whole point of regulation - to threaten with violence, acts that people have agreed are not a good idea. If software engineers were regulated under IEEE, the freedoms of software engineers would decrease not increase. I quote from the article you linked: "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Regulation, by definition, is intolerance. For example - the minimum wage regulation. You have now removed the freedom of an untrained, unemployed person to sell their labor at a lower floor which was their only way to gain employment when there's a trained but unemployed person willing to also work for minimum wage!
    - germinalphrase 6y ago
      Your perception of definition is not universal.
    - tkfu 6y ago
      You've got a pretty simplistic view of freedom there, bud. Regulations often increase freedom for some while decreasing it for others. Constitutions are just regulations for government--does preventing the government from infringing on the right to free speech, for example, increase or decrease freedom? Employers have immense power over their workers, and regulation is one of the tools societies can use to make sure that power isn't abused.
      - subhobroto 6y ago
        Regulation, by definition, decreases freedom. The word regulate, in regulation literally means "decrease freedom". In physics, a regulator is used to decrease freedom. That's why regulators are used in the first place. > Regulations often increase freedom for some while decreasing it for others Again, regulations can only decrease freedom. It does not make sense to "increase" something that already exists. The freedom to live does not make you more alive than what you already are. > Constitutions are just regulations for government--does preventing the government from infringing on the right to free speech, for example, increase or decrease freedom? The concept of free speech is innate and available everywhere, including countries that does not recognize free speech. Free speech is an inalienable right that every person is born with. It does not require someone else to grant or validate it. All that the first amendment to the Constitution does is _recognize_ (not increase) your freedom to speak against the "government". That is it. The "government" still can jail you or even kill you. All that a country that recognizes free speech promises is that after the deed is done, it will bring that misdeed to justice and hopefully right that wrong. If that was not the case, the courts would be way less crowded than it already is. Also, first amendment to the Constitution does not apply to private citizens. If you suddenly started to yell at your neighbor's lawn, not matter how well placed and logical your arguments are, you will still get booted with no legal recourse. The only thing that is left is if this was the government that booted you out, you can take them to court and expect to win if you have a valid case. There can be no such expectation in a country that does not recognize free speech.
- subhobroto 6y ago
  Spot on. I am so surprised you've been downvoted to hell. Sometimes it seems basic economics is an alien concept.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Because you're applying a definition of freedom so absolutely and narrowly that it ceases to be useful. Assault being illegal increases my freedom because I can freely walk down the street without threat of harm. Prohibiting outside doors from being locked in a factory increases my freedom as a worker to leave whenever I choose. And theoretically at an absolute minimum any time you see a prisoners dilemma regulation is how you prevent it and make sure that everyone gets their preferred outcome. If your definition of freedom can't explain why voluntary enslavement makes people less free then it's useless.
    - subhobroto 6y ago
      > And theoretically at an absolute minimum any time you see a prisoners dilemma regulation is how you prevent it and make sure that everyone gets their preferred outcome. I can assure you that not everyone is getting their preferred outcome. That's why the term "prisoners" instead of "willing teammates" are used here. > Prohibiting outside doors from being locked in a factory increases my freedom as a worker to leave whenever I choose. As a worker you always can leave whenever you choose. Past. Present. Future. That does not mean you get to keep your job doing that. Slaves too had the freedom to leave whenever they chose unless they were in chains. The only issue was the enforcement of certain labor contracts that have since been deemed illegal. To clarify, the slaves were treated as property just like you now treat your pets, in this day and age. If your pet was to flee you would capture it and offer rewards for its re-capture. The concept of it is still alive in this day and age. It's just not phrased in those specific terms. Your mention of voluntary enslavement indicates you are well aware of what I mentioned and how modern society has just devised new means of enslavement while being compliant with anti-slavery regulations. > Assault being illegal increases my freedom because I can freely walk down the street without threat of harm. Absolutely not. Making something illegal absolutely does not shield you against harm. Making something legal absolutely does not shield you against harm either. If you exercised your right of freedom of speech in San Francisco and serenaded Trump, you will see what I mean. There is no magic cloak that protects you from "illegal" things. If someone shot you with a machine gun - the former being a criminal activity with various levels of prosecution and the later being literally illegal in most practical sense in the U.S. - you are still shot and injured - illegal or not. You are still hurt or dead. The only concern at that point is whether the perpetrator is going to be first caught, and then prosecuted under the laws that make their activity liable for prosecution. If they run away, tough luck - illegal and all that. If you are a terrorist on the run, assault is no longer off the table. Saddam and Osama can speak a few words about that. Any kind of weapons are illegal in Mexico, so it assault. Yet people die of both in Mexico. Fact remains you are still hurt or dead irregardless of the agility of it. You dont have the ability to arise from the ashes even if the method of your injury/mortality was illegal. Physics and biology don't consult the roster of human idiosyncrasies. They follow the rules of science, illegal or not. The moon rotated around the earth well before, during it was illegal to do so and it continues to.
- smaddox 6y ago
  One person's rights/freedoms are another person's responsibility. There can be no freedom without responsibility. Regulation is legally enforced responsibility.
  - subhobroto 6y ago
    > One person's rights/freedoms are another person's responsibility yes > There can be no freedom without responsibility. yes so as I like to say it - freedom is anything but free > Regulation is legally enforced responsibility. Yes! The issue I have with regulation is it requires enforcement to be truly useful and part of that requires the person seeking enforcement to yield their freedom to the enforcing authority to kick in. Yet people seem to believe that regulation is this magic pixe dust that grants everyone special powers. That's crazy talk! I tried to make the point here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23169673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23169673

brenden2 6y ago

A lot of people aren't in a position where they can quit their job and spend a few months looking for a new one. And in the US there's no safety net.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Frost1x 6y ago

While there's some power in voting with your choices, it's not really voting because a true vote with your choice must occur without being under duress or leveraged. When it comes to employment, unless you're swimming in money and are basically just working for the sole purpose that you enjoy it, you're leveraged into adjusting your vote accordingly to your best option. When true competition exists and your labor easily transfers, then by all means, select employers with reasonable practices. Relatively few people get to completely pick where they want to work and for what position they work. Most of us who aren't the top say 5% in our field pick a few handfuls and take a shotgun approach to see which opportunity lands. If none of those options land, we move to options we don't like because not working isn't a viable option. Right now with unemployment rates skyrocketing, you have even less flexibility because labor is even more leveraged and have to cave into more and more policies like this. The only way to protect labor in these situations, aside from organized labor unions, is creating enforceable regulatory protections for labor.

ahelwer 6y ago

While this is certainly one method, it is not the only one. Change from within is possible and requires organizing with your colleagues. Otherwise we become like locusts, forever driven from place to place in search of ever-shrinking fertile land.