3 ms·
The best counterargument here is that currently, the market adjudicates this already. Roles demanding after-hours access typically yield higher compensation th
by evancoop 5y ago
The best counterargument here is that currently, the market adjudicates this already. Roles demanding after-hours access typically yield higher compensation than similar roles that do not. The market essentially offers an employee the opportunity to offer an employer greater availability in exchange for pay. If the employer demands that access without the corresponding compensation, the employee is likely to depart. This law posits a market failure. Does one exist?
- pc86 5y agoI agree with you 90% of the way, and it would be 100% if not for the fact that there are plenty of jobs which only exist with constant contact from your boss. There may be folks willing to do those jobs for lower compensation, but they don't have the opportunity. Also, I take issue generally with the idea that in order to only work reasonable hours without being bothered by your boss you need to get paid less for the work you already do.
- confidantlake 5y agoYou could make that same argument for health and safety regulations. Why have them? The market will compensate the least safe places higher. But still I would rather know my workplace has some sort of minimum safety standard rather than try to guess and find the one least likely to get me injured/killed. There are at least 2 market failures I see. One is perfect information. The average worker will not know enough about how after hours access request system is implemented before starting. The other is perfect competition. In an ideal market there would be more competition that would give the worker enough choice to work without this after hours request demand. But in the real world the employee often does not have this choice.