3 ms·

Seems like the law of unintended consequences at work?

• waterside81 5y ago
  Yeah these labor related laws really need to be administered federally to be effective.
  • toomuchtodo 5y ago
    The challenge with that is if you can't get the Department of Labor to institute this (under a favorable administration), Congress is mostly deadlocked until the makeup up representatives turns over (through voter turnover). Alternatively, you could target enough states to pass this law that it would be useless to avoid listing your jobs in those states, as you'd be excluding excessive candidates from your candidate pool. California, Oregon, Washington state, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York would be ideal next states to push this legislation. Texas and Florida would, of course, not be likely to pass such legislation although they each have large populations that would benefit from such pro labor statute. Turn the ratchet.
    • waterside81 5y ago
      You're right. It's kind of like marijuana legalization. The feds refused to but it's almost become defacto law of the land when enough states do it themselves.
• ricksunny 5y ago
  Avoiding the so-called 'Law of unintended consequences' is used a lot to try and justify races-to-the-bottom. A jurisdiction could require better environmental safeguards, encouraging high-polluting employers to leave that jurisdiction for [$name-of-jurisdiction-with-more-lax-environmental-regulations]. That doesn't mean the environmental safeguards should never be promulgated.
  • stickfigure 5y ago
    ...and sometimes it's just a dumb law that doesn't provide the results the authors expect. See also: Cookie accept banners.