5 ms·

Been in this case a couple jobs; both MSP jobs naturally. When you're burnt out you just don't see it. In both of my previous jobs the burnout also had a boss w

Been in this case a couple jobs; both MSP jobs naturally. When you're burnt out you just don't see it. In both of my previous jobs the burnout also had a boss who was consistently micromanaging and saying you aren't working hard enough. This is one of the weaknesses of government. A fundamental law that governments should have is that your employer cannot harm your health. Even in mental cases like burnout, the employer is almost certainly trading the employee's health for money. An employee's health is not something an employer should be allowed to trade. In more physical injury, someone lifting 200lbs hurting their back or some ancient machine that lacks any safety features leading to injury. The employer is trading their employee's health in place of profits in not having safety. Even with workplace safety measures, who ultimately pays is the government and therefore tax payers for these injuries. These bad employers get to keep their $.

dcolkitt 6y ago
Plenty of jobs trade their employees' health for money. If they didn't, the economy would literally cease to function. Oil rig workers, miners, lumber workers, fishermen, roofers, pilots, farmers, even truck drivers have significantly elevated mortality rates. The reality is that there are many jobs that require a sacrifice in terms of health and safety. Until we're living in a post-scarcity economy, they always will. We can do things like make those jobs as safe as practically possible. Or make sure workers are aware of the risks before they sign up. But, it's unrealistic utopian thinking to believe that no one will ever be asked to sacrifice their health or safety for their job.
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago
  >Plenty of jobs trade their employees' health for money. If they didn't, the economy would literally cease to function. Oil rig workers, miners, lumber workers, fishermen, roofers, pilots, farmers, even truck drivers have significantly elevated mortality rates. You're completely right. >The reality is that there are many jobs that require a sacrifice in terms of health and safety. Until we're living in a post-scarcity economy, they always will. We can do things like make those jobs as safe as practically possible. Or make sure workers are aware of the risks before they sign up. I disagree. The point I am making is that we must make that illegal. We should require the employers to solve that problem. All of these have known hazards that which can be solved. We simply decide that we let employers profit off it. That's wrong. >But, it's unrealistic utopian thinking to believe that no one will ever be asked to sacrifice their health or safety for their job. There are some exceptions that obviously do need to exist. Military or law enforcement for example will have harms in their life that are by definition. I look at your list of examples of higher mortality employers and I agree they exist, I even understand what makes them dangerous. Truck drivers for example is simply the Diesel Exhaust. Electric semi trucks is a thing now, but HEPA filters have existed for how long? There's a fix for every single one of those industries.
  - ed312 6y ago
    I think truck drivers its more a function of 1. driving lots of miles (the more you're on the road, the more risk you're in) plus 2. sedentary job. There is definitely not a fix for every industry - and some people are happy with taking that risk for more money than a lower risk job/profession. "Just make dangerous job conditions illegal" is a naïve view of the world. Even if you could pass such laws, you'd get a massive skills drain and/or black market work to get those jobs done.
TheDong 6y ago
> This is one of the weaknesses of government. A fundamental law that governments should have is that your employer cannot harm your health I think there's a better way to deal with this. Rather than legislate that certain abuses of health aren't okay, let's instead make it so people aren't stuck working jobs if they don't think it's worth it. Right now, the main reason workplaces can abuse employees so much is that employees can't quit, or else they'd starve on the street. If we had a livable universal basic income, that would allow anyone to, at any time, decide if their job's extra income + the meaning it gave them was worth the stress and other issues. We already have good evidence that this wouldn't result in no one working since, well, quite a few of the people born wealthy enough to never need to work do work anyway.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  > Rather than Why not both?
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago
  >I think there's a better way to deal with this. Rather than legislate that certain abuses of health aren't okay, let's instead make it so people aren't stuck working jobs if they don't think it's worth it. Right now, the main reason workplaces can abuse employees so much is that employees can't quit, or else they'd starve on the street. I know where you're going and I'm a fence sitter. >If we had a livable universal basic income, that would allow anyone to, at any time, decide if their job's extra income + the meaning it gave them was worth the stress and other issues. Here in Canada we have tried basic income systems and even have a current system for some of our people. It's a disaster. It single handedly increases poverty and crime like no other policy. Have you ever heard of a negative income tax rate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM >We already have good evidence that this wouldn't result in no one working since, well, quite a few of the people born wealthy enough to never need to work do work anyway. Only when you exclude systems that arent by name which is common for socialist/communist/collectivist/postmodernist or whatever the new brand is that they go by today as the old name becomes tarnished. There's tremendous evidence that welfare system in general have never been successful. When we have a problem that which the welfare system is proposed as the fix. The problem gets worse as the welfare system is implemented. Then the fix is that the welfare system needs more money and as they get more money the problem becomes worse. In fact many of these systems are not designed to help the poor even though by name they are supposed to be.
kaybe 6y ago
> A fundamental law that governments should have is that your employer cannot harm your health. A small note: Germany does have a law like this. (I cannot find anything about it in English though.) https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%25C3%25BCrsorgepflicht https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
- sleepysysadmin 6y ago
  >A small note: Germany does have a law like this. (I cannot find anything about it in English though.) The more I know about Germany's government the more I like about it.
  - dasKrokodil 6y ago
    There have been worse German governments than the current one.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Pretty sure the Health & Safety at Work Act (UK) [1] meets this requirement. There's various common law things related to duty of care and negligence that probably apply less specifically too. I'd really expect every democratic country to have some form of law requiring employers take care of their employees -- they should expect to do something in return for leeching off ones production of value. [1] https://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm https://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm
  - Pyramus 6y ago
    That is correct, but the bar for enforcement is very high when it comes to mental health. E.g. I remember a case of a police officer suffering from depression (?) but "only" stressing folks out is not enough unfortunately. In addition, you have to show a causal relationsship, which again is a lot more difficult for mental health as there are usually several factors at play even though work might be the pre-dominant one.
nitrogen 6y ago
who ultimately pays is the government At least in the US, I believe that employers are required to pay for workers' compensation insurance to cover injuries on the job.
pqoek 6y ago
I'm in the reverse situation, I'm free to do whatever I please and plan work myself, nobody really track my work besides the item that I placed there myself, the burn out is mostly coming from having too many meetings, not being able to relate to the product, and not being supported or having peers to exchange ideas with.

dcolkitt 6y ago

Plenty of jobs trade their employees' health for money. If they didn't, the economy would literally cease to function. Oil rig workers, miners, lumber workers, fishermen, roofers, pilots, farmers, even truck drivers have significantly elevated mortality rates. The reality is that there are many jobs that require a sacrifice in terms of health and safety. Until we're living in a post-scarcity economy, they always will. We can do things like make those jobs as safe as practically possible. Or make sure workers are aware of the risks before they sign up. But, it's unrealistic utopian thinking to believe that no one will ever be asked to sacrifice their health or safety for their job.

sleepysysadmin 6y ago
>Plenty of jobs trade their employees' health for money. If they didn't, the economy would literally cease to function. Oil rig workers, miners, lumber workers, fishermen, roofers, pilots, farmers, even truck drivers have significantly elevated mortality rates. You're completely right. >The reality is that there are many jobs that require a sacrifice in terms of health and safety. Until we're living in a post-scarcity economy, they always will. We can do things like make those jobs as safe as practically possible. Or make sure workers are aware of the risks before they sign up. I disagree. The point I am making is that we must make that illegal. We should require the employers to solve that problem. All of these have known hazards that which can be solved. We simply decide that we let employers profit off it. That's wrong. >But, it's unrealistic utopian thinking to believe that no one will ever be asked to sacrifice their health or safety for their job. There are some exceptions that obviously do need to exist. Military or law enforcement for example will have harms in their life that are by definition. I look at your list of examples of higher mortality employers and I agree they exist, I even understand what makes them dangerous. Truck drivers for example is simply the Diesel Exhaust. Electric semi trucks is a thing now, but HEPA filters have existed for how long? There's a fix for every single one of those industries.
- ed312 6y ago
  I think truck drivers its more a function of 1. driving lots of miles (the more you're on the road, the more risk you're in) plus 2. sedentary job. There is definitely not a fix for every industry - and some people are happy with taking that risk for more money than a lower risk job/profession. "Just make dangerous job conditions illegal" is a naïve view of the world. Even if you could pass such laws, you'd get a massive skills drain and/or black market work to get those jobs done.

TheDong 6y ago

> This is one of the weaknesses of government. A fundamental law that governments should have is that your employer cannot harm your health I think there's a better way to deal with this. Rather than legislate that certain abuses of health aren't okay, let's instead make it so people aren't stuck working jobs if they don't think it's worth it. Right now, the main reason workplaces can abuse employees so much is that employees can't quit, or else they'd starve on the street. If we had a livable universal basic income, that would allow anyone to, at any time, decide if their job's extra income + the meaning it gave them was worth the stress and other issues. We already have good evidence that this wouldn't result in no one working since, well, quite a few of the people born wealthy enough to never need to work do work anyway.

eeZah7Ux 6y ago
> Rather than Why not both?
sleepysysadmin 6y ago
>I think there's a better way to deal with this. Rather than legislate that certain abuses of health aren't okay, let's instead make it so people aren't stuck working jobs if they don't think it's worth it. Right now, the main reason workplaces can abuse employees so much is that employees can't quit, or else they'd starve on the street. I know where you're going and I'm a fence sitter. >If we had a livable universal basic income, that would allow anyone to, at any time, decide if their job's extra income + the meaning it gave them was worth the stress and other issues. Here in Canada we have tried basic income systems and even have a current system for some of our people. It's a disaster. It single handedly increases poverty and crime like no other policy. Have you ever heard of a negative income tax rate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM >We already have good evidence that this wouldn't result in no one working since, well, quite a few of the people born wealthy enough to never need to work do work anyway. Only when you exclude systems that arent by name which is common for socialist/communist/collectivist/postmodernist or whatever the new brand is that they go by today as the old name becomes tarnished. There's tremendous evidence that welfare system in general have never been successful. When we have a problem that which the welfare system is proposed as the fix. The problem gets worse as the welfare system is implemented. Then the fix is that the welfare system needs more money and as they get more money the problem becomes worse. In fact many of these systems are not designed to help the poor even though by name they are supposed to be.

kaybe 6y ago

> A fundamental law that governments should have is that your employer cannot harm your health. A small note: Germany does have a law like this. (I cannot find anything about it in English though.) https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%25C3%25BCrsorgepflicht https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...

sleepysysadmin 6y ago
>A small note: Germany does have a law like this. (I cannot find anything about it in English though.) The more I know about Germany's government the more I like about it.
- dasKrokodil 6y ago
  There have been worse German governments than the current one.
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Pretty sure the Health & Safety at Work Act (UK) [1] meets this requirement. There's various common law things related to duty of care and negligence that probably apply less specifically too. I'd really expect every democratic country to have some form of law requiring employers take care of their employees -- they should expect to do something in return for leeching off ones production of value. [1] https://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm https://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm
- Pyramus 6y ago
  That is correct, but the bar for enforcement is very high when it comes to mental health. E.g. I remember a case of a police officer suffering from depression (?) but "only" stressing folks out is not enough unfortunately. In addition, you have to show a causal relationsship, which again is a lot more difficult for mental health as there are usually several factors at play even though work might be the pre-dominant one.

nitrogen 6y ago

who ultimately pays is the government At least in the US, I believe that employers are required to pay for workers' compensation insurance to cover injuries on the job.

pqoek 6y ago

I'm in the reverse situation, I'm free to do whatever I please and plan work myself, nobody really track my work besides the item that I placed there myself, the burn out is mostly coming from having too many meetings, not being able to relate to the product, and not being supported or having peers to exchange ideas with.