3 ms·

I dont get it. If it's a voluntary exchange then it's definitionally non-exploitative.

duxup 4y ago
Based on the article the amounts owed appear to be at times arbitrary and don’t seem to reflect the cost to the employer/ what work the employee did. I don’t think you can voluntarily / knowledgeably agree to a completely unknown sum.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Wages already dont reflect the value of the work done. Thats how profit is made. So, I'm not seeing much of a difference.
  - duxup 4y ago
    As described in the article one employee upsold $6k in extra products, but when she quit she was charged the full amount of the training bill. This would seem to indicate these financial punishments/ threats don’t reflect anything the employer is actually losing, and the employee actions potentially have no impact on the cost. Hard to really be informed as to what you are agreeing to when it seems to be an entirely arbitrary outcome.
marak830 4y ago
If enough employers insist on this, then the standard of employment goes down. Workers rights must be immutable to stop that happening.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  If it's real employers with a reasonable duration, then would it have a significant impact even if it's very widespread?
andrekandre 4y ago
> I dont get it. If it's a voluntary exchange then it's definitionally non-exploitative. "voluntary" is such a tricky word isn't it... used to paper over exploitative arrangements since basically forever.
ckw 4y ago
Sell yourself into slavery— it’s definitionally non-exploitative.
- rsynnott 4y ago
  I have seem people, on this very website, unironically claim that Roman slavery was non-exploitative for that reason (this was a major source of slaves at certain points in Rome's history).
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    If we admit that voluntary exchanges can be exploitative then even arrangements like wage labor under capitalism would be considered exploitative.
    - ckw 4y ago
      CEOs aren’t exploited. (My actual position is more nuanced, but I think it’s irrelevant, as you must agree CEOs are not exploited).
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        CEOs tend to be compensated in ways that make them more than mere wage laborers so our intersection of agreement is likely much higher, yes. We can also acknowledge that stock-based compensation[RSUs], ESPP, and even 401k's(in certain, yet extremely prevalent configurations) also hybridize a fair share of workers who at the same time are income-funded through wage labor. While this makes some workers not neatly classifiable into one or the other bucket, I don't believe it necessarily invalidates the argument. We can, without even drawing a line, agree that such a line exist somewhere between the two extremes and proceed from there.
  - ckw 4y ago
    Yeah the past couple days have been pretty shocking. In another thread someone effectively evinced support for child labor (i.e., four year olds shouldn’t be prevented from sweeping chimneys).
darkarmani 4y ago
What did the employee get in exchange? Bait and switch training?

Based on the article the amounts owed appear to be at times arbitrary and don’t seem to reflect the cost to the employer/ what work the employee did. I don’t think you can voluntarily / knowledgeably agree to a completely unknown sum.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
Wages already dont reflect the value of the work done. Thats how profit is made. So, I'm not seeing much of a difference.
- duxup 4y ago
  As described in the article one employee upsold $6k in extra products, but when she quit she was charged the full amount of the training bill. This would seem to indicate these financial punishments/ threats don’t reflect anything the employer is actually losing, and the employee actions potentially have no impact on the cost. Hard to really be informed as to what you are agreeing to when it seems to be an entirely arbitrary outcome.

marak830 4y ago

If enough employers insist on this, then the standard of employment goes down. Workers rights must be immutable to stop that happening.

Dylan16807 4y ago
If it's real employers with a reasonable duration, then would it have a significant impact even if it's very widespread?

andrekandre 4y ago

> I dont get it. If it's a voluntary exchange then it's definitionally non-exploitative. "voluntary" is such a tricky word isn't it... used to paper over exploitative arrangements since basically forever.

ckw 4y ago

Sell yourself into slavery— it’s definitionally non-exploitative.

rsynnott 4y ago
I have seem people, on this very website, unironically claim that Roman slavery was non-exploitative for that reason (this was a major source of slaves at certain points in Rome's history).
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  If we admit that voluntary exchanges can be exploitative then even arrangements like wage labor under capitalism would be considered exploitative.
  - ckw 4y ago
    CEOs aren’t exploited. (My actual position is more nuanced, but I think it’s irrelevant, as you must agree CEOs are not exploited).
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      CEOs tend to be compensated in ways that make them more than mere wage laborers so our intersection of agreement is likely much higher, yes. We can also acknowledge that stock-based compensation[RSUs], ESPP, and even 401k's(in certain, yet extremely prevalent configurations) also hybridize a fair share of workers who at the same time are income-funded through wage labor. While this makes some workers not neatly classifiable into one or the other bucket, I don't believe it necessarily invalidates the argument. We can, without even drawing a line, agree that such a line exist somewhere between the two extremes and proceed from there.
- ckw 4y ago
  Yeah the past couple days have been pretty shocking. In another thread someone effectively evinced support for child labor (i.e., four year olds shouldn’t be prevented from sweeping chimneys).

darkarmani 4y ago

What did the employee get in exchange? Bait and switch training?