4 ms·

Complete bullshit. Do a job that is actually in demand, then nobody can force you to work more than you want. And the 8 hour work day was supposedly introduced

Complete bullshit. Do a job that is actually in demand, then nobody can force you to work more than you want. And the 8 hour work day was supposedly introduced by Ford, not by Unions.

baq 6y ago
There’s plenty of jobs in demand that still don’t pay enough to house and feed more than one person. Unions are a way of making HR listen.
- cheesecracker 6y ago
  Which jobs would that be, can you give some examples?
  - danaris 6y ago
    Fast food worker? Retail clerk? Pretty much anything that falls under "essential jobs" during the pandemic fits the "in demand" label, and the vast majority of those pay low wages. And no matter how easy it is for a company to replace a given worker in their job, no job should ever pay so little that the person in it cannot live on what they make from it. Any business that cannot survive while paying its employees a true living wage does not deserve to exist, because it is offloading its costs onto the rest of us through the various social programs its employees depend upon to survive.
    - amadeuspagel 6y ago
      >Any business that cannot survive while paying its employees a true living wage does not deserve to exist, because it is offloading its costs onto the rest of us through the various social programs its employees depend upon to survive. That's not true. The rest of us would have to pay those costs anyway. It's not like the person wouldn't exist, if they didn't have a job.
      - danaris 6y ago
        Um...what? Given the choices a) Business pays employee a living wage; taxpayers pay nothing for that person's survival b) Business pays employee a less-than-living wage; taxpayers pay partially for that person's survival c) Person has no job; taxpayers pay fully for that person's survival (Note, of course, that this leaves off choice d) Person has no job, or does not make enough from their job to survive; for whatever reason, they also cannot obtain welfare, and they die.) ...I think that most people would agree that the best of these three is (a). In that situation "the rest of us" most certainly do not have to pay those costs. Furthermore, I think the more important point than "the person would still exist if they didn't have a job" is "other, better jobs would still exist if that company folded due to unprofitability, or was never created in the first place". People have an inherent right to life, liberty, and property. Businesses are not some sacred abstract; they exist purely to support people. Any privileges they have (down to and including their existence), we grant them, and we can revoke from them if they are not fulfilling their fundamental purposes.
        amadeuspagel 6y ago
        >Any business that cannot survive while paying its employees a true living wage does not deserve to exist Given that we're talking about such businesses, the choice is between b and c, and b is clearly preferable.
        danielscrubs 6y ago
        Depends on if B leads (via lower wages) to more of B to compete. For example the government may say that to clean their facility, cleaning companies need to be able to do a, b, c and after that it all comes down to the price. Almost all of them can do a,b,c so they compete on price, on cleaning company is not paying taxes though so can offer lower prices and wins all deals, forcing all other companies to stop paying taxes to survive, and makes the whole trade in that area morally bankrupt. See also: construction business & tipping.
        test48782 6y ago
        If type b companies are not allowed to exist, the market will then be able to support more type a companies and may ultimately have less type c individuals. It may result in a net decrease of social services used.
    - cheesecracker 6y ago
      "In Demand" as in "can't find as many people as you want to fill the jobs". Unskilled work usually doesn't fall in that category.
  - baq 6y ago
    Fast food, cleaning, warehouse busywork, etc.
pseudalopex 6y ago
Ford didn't invent the 8 hour day.[1] [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/03/how-the-8-hour-workday-changed-how-americans-work.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/03/how-the-8-hour-workday-chang...
- cheesecracker 6y ago
  Thanks for the info. Article doesn't mention the reasoning behind Ford's move, though. I still think the whole demand is completely backwards. Article also mentions the info workers who work 12 hours and more - well they do it because they make good money that way. They'll retire by 40 and have the last laugh.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Most people working 12 hour days in tech and finance won't retire by 40. The factory workers the article mentions in the very next sentence won't either.
    - cheesecracker 6y ago
      They can afford to take a long holiday at the very least. Compared to other workers, certainly. Or maybe they prefer to live in expensive housing instead of paying for spare time. Why shouldn't it be their choice? As for factory workers, are you sure the issue is factories not paying enough? Or what exactly is going on in the US economy? What is so expensive? Why is there so much competition for jobs?

Complete bullshit. Do a job that is actually in demand, then nobody can force you to work more than you want. And the 8 hour work day was supposedly introduced by Ford, not by Unions.

baq 6y ago

There’s plenty of jobs in demand that still don’t pay enough to house and feed more than one person. Unions are a way of making HR listen.

cheesecracker 6y ago
Which jobs would that be, can you give some examples?
- danaris 6y ago
  Fast food worker? Retail clerk? Pretty much anything that falls under "essential jobs" during the pandemic fits the "in demand" label, and the vast majority of those pay low wages. And no matter how easy it is for a company to replace a given worker in their job, no job should ever pay so little that the person in it cannot live on what they make from it. Any business that cannot survive while paying its employees a true living wage does not deserve to exist, because it is offloading its costs onto the rest of us through the various social programs its employees depend upon to survive.
  - amadeuspagel 6y ago
    >Any business that cannot survive while paying its employees a true living wage does not deserve to exist, because it is offloading its costs onto the rest of us through the various social programs its employees depend upon to survive. That's not true. The rest of us would have to pay those costs anyway. It's not like the person wouldn't exist, if they didn't have a job.
    - danaris 6y ago
      Um...what? Given the choices a) Business pays employee a living wage; taxpayers pay nothing for that person's survival b) Business pays employee a less-than-living wage; taxpayers pay partially for that person's survival c) Person has no job; taxpayers pay fully for that person's survival (Note, of course, that this leaves off choice d) Person has no job, or does not make enough from their job to survive; for whatever reason, they also cannot obtain welfare, and they die.) ...I think that most people would agree that the best of these three is (a). In that situation "the rest of us" most certainly do not have to pay those costs. Furthermore, I think the more important point than "the person would still exist if they didn't have a job" is "other, better jobs would still exist if that company folded due to unprofitability, or was never created in the first place". People have an inherent right to life, liberty, and property. Businesses are not some sacred abstract; they exist purely to support people. Any privileges they have (down to and including their existence), we grant them, and we can revoke from them if they are not fulfilling their fundamental purposes.
      - amadeuspagel 6y ago
        >Any business that cannot survive while paying its employees a true living wage does not deserve to exist Given that we're talking about such businesses, the choice is between b and c, and b is clearly preferable.
        danielscrubs 6y ago
        Depends on if B leads (via lower wages) to more of B to compete. For example the government may say that to clean their facility, cleaning companies need to be able to do a, b, c and after that it all comes down to the price. Almost all of them can do a,b,c so they compete on price, on cleaning company is not paying taxes though so can offer lower prices and wins all deals, forcing all other companies to stop paying taxes to survive, and makes the whole trade in that area morally bankrupt. See also: construction business & tipping.
        test48782 6y ago
        If type b companies are not allowed to exist, the market will then be able to support more type a companies and may ultimately have less type c individuals. It may result in a net decrease of social services used.
  - cheesecracker 6y ago
    "In Demand" as in "can't find as many people as you want to fill the jobs". Unskilled work usually doesn't fall in that category.
- baq 6y ago
  Fast food, cleaning, warehouse busywork, etc.

pseudalopex 6y ago

Ford didn't invent the 8 hour day.[1] [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/03/how-the-8-hour-workday-changed-how-americans-work.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/03/how-the-8-hour-workday-chang...

cheesecracker 6y ago
Thanks for the info. Article doesn't mention the reasoning behind Ford's move, though. I still think the whole demand is completely backwards. Article also mentions the info workers who work 12 hours and more - well they do it because they make good money that way. They'll retire by 40 and have the last laugh.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Most people working 12 hour days in tech and finance won't retire by 40. The factory workers the article mentions in the very next sentence won't either.
  - cheesecracker 6y ago
    They can afford to take a long holiday at the very least. Compared to other workers, certainly. Or maybe they prefer to live in expensive housing instead of paying for spare time. Why shouldn't it be their choice? As for factory workers, are you sure the issue is factories not paying enough? Or what exactly is going on in the US economy? What is so expensive? Why is there so much competition for jobs?