5 ms·

I hesitate to speak an unpopular (in many senses of the word) position, but there is a stark truth if you are a scientific/economic/objective observer that as l

I hesitate to speak an unpopular (in many senses of the word) position, but there is a stark truth if you are a scientific/economic/objective observer that as long as people are willing to sign up for jobs under these conditions, you cannot greatly escape the truth the employers will continue to offer those conditions. Be outraged as much as you want, and claim that this is so anti-labor and immoral / unfair, but it is a truth you can see play out in many similar spheres. You keep accepting conditions, and there is no incentive to change. And trying to put in rules to prevent it artificially is simply protecting some workers from what the market will bear. It went the other way for workers because of mass shifts in unwillingness to work under certain conditions -- see the wage rises during Covid and up to today. Things do change if people are unwilling to take the jobs. We unfortunately have too many people willing to take these jobs at the pay and benefits / conditions offered. Until that changes, you're fighting a fight against market forces. Unions, for all the good they done at times in the past, are trying to escape competitive market forces. As are we all, I admit.

rqtwteye 4y ago
You can't always excuse bad things with "market forces". We have prohibited child labor. Otherwise "market forces" would also motivate poor children to work in coal mines. We could mandate reasonable sick day and vacation policies. We shouldn't accept exploitation of people who are willing to take a job.
- kepler1 4y ago
  Again, at the risk of sounding coldly analytical about it, while I'm grateful child labor laws were put in place, I don't think they actually did much to alleviate the underlying reasons and experiences of why children were put to work (by their parents or exploiters or themselves) in those days. Suddenly outlawing children from working didn't miraculously make their lives better or lift them out of poverty. Stopping people from taking those jobs merely stopped them from making their desperation visible (and of course obviously yes, from dying in horrible conditions they probably had no idea they were signing up for). It was other efforts and initiatives improving the standard of living that made the difference. I do think such laws have a very good and important role to play where people don't fully know what they've agreed to. If someone wants to get a job by offering their labor for less than his next competitor and is going into it with full information, I don't think we should act like we're doing him a favor by stopping him from doing so. Stopping someone from taking a less than minimum wage job has not alleviated their situation. Again, just dispassionate observation -- mandating whatever number of sick days per year may be a humane gesture, but it doesn't change the underlying fact that there is a surplus of willing labor in this country willing to take jobs at these pay rates that even don't have any such benefits. Efforts by unions to say that their political power and striking/etc led to change in our standard of living are conveniently mixed up with the rising general demand for labor and wages because we were a growing country willing to pay for relatively scarce labor at the time. Those conditions are not the same now.
  - rqtwteye 4y ago
    What you are saying sounds a little like victim blaming. We need regulations so companies can’t compete on cutting costs through not providing things like sick days or safe working conditions. There are always people desperate enough to take exploitative/unsafe jobs. These jobs should not exist and all companies should compete under the same rules.
    - kepler1 4y ago
      I think we're talking on orthogonal lines. It's not companies who are competing, but workers who are competing with each other for jobs and being willing to take those jobs. If the employment conditions are transparent and not unsafe physically (which is related to having full information about what you're signing up for), why is sick days something that shouldn't be open to negotiation or a person willing to agree to have more or fewer of them? Suppose that a person is young and healthy and believes he/she doesn't need a lot of sick days. Why is it unreasonable for him/her to agree to a job that doesn't offer extra sick days? What's the logic / principle there? Is it because sickness is unpredictable and an employee shouldn't have to suffer from something unexpected? Is it an information asymmetry argument?
ledauphin 4y ago
counterpoint - most jobs require a certain amount of training, and once you have started a "career" in that job, you often cannot switch to any job with equivalent salary, despite the fact that such jobs exist. IOW, it's rarely about _taking_ the job and more about not wanting to take a significant step backward when you decide you're fed up with it.
OkayPhysicist 4y ago
If we want to give the companies a carte blanche to abuse their employees, then worker retaliation should be back on the table. After all, the government is only artificially fighting against the natural forces of tar and feathering.
UtopiaPunk 4y ago
"We unfortunately have too many people willing to take these jobs at the pay and benefits / conditions offered." Our economic system demands that most people must work some kind of job in order to have shelter and food. Some people are working 2 or 3 terrible jobs because that's what is needed to make rent. They can't hold out for a job that provides a humane level of pay and working conditions. Furthermore, capitalist economies rely on a certain percentage of workers (roughly 5%) are unemployed at any given time. This creates an environment where workers are generally desperate and bosses have power. It's barbaric that a certain number of people are guaranteed to be unemployed when employment is required to have shelter, food, and healthcare. The COVID pandemic did a lot of weird things that moved some power to workers. There were stronger unemployment protections and eviction moratoriums, so more workers could actually afford to hold out for better offers as unemployment was not awful. And the unemployment rate dropped as workers took early retirement or, frankly, died. Now pandemic protections are ending and inflation is eating into those wage gains. The way workers gain any lasting power is to gain stronger bargaining power. That means unions.

rqtwteye 4y ago

You can't always excuse bad things with "market forces". We have prohibited child labor. Otherwise "market forces" would also motivate poor children to work in coal mines. We could mandate reasonable sick day and vacation policies. We shouldn't accept exploitation of people who are willing to take a job.

kepler1 4y ago
Again, at the risk of sounding coldly analytical about it, while I'm grateful child labor laws were put in place, I don't think they actually did much to alleviate the underlying reasons and experiences of why children were put to work (by their parents or exploiters or themselves) in those days. Suddenly outlawing children from working didn't miraculously make their lives better or lift them out of poverty. Stopping people from taking those jobs merely stopped them from making their desperation visible (and of course obviously yes, from dying in horrible conditions they probably had no idea they were signing up for). It was other efforts and initiatives improving the standard of living that made the difference. I do think such laws have a very good and important role to play where people don't fully know what they've agreed to. If someone wants to get a job by offering their labor for less than his next competitor and is going into it with full information, I don't think we should act like we're doing him a favor by stopping him from doing so. Stopping someone from taking a less than minimum wage job has not alleviated their situation. Again, just dispassionate observation -- mandating whatever number of sick days per year may be a humane gesture, but it doesn't change the underlying fact that there is a surplus of willing labor in this country willing to take jobs at these pay rates that even don't have any such benefits. Efforts by unions to say that their political power and striking/etc led to change in our standard of living are conveniently mixed up with the rising general demand for labor and wages because we were a growing country willing to pay for relatively scarce labor at the time. Those conditions are not the same now.
- rqtwteye 4y ago
  What you are saying sounds a little like victim blaming. We need regulations so companies can’t compete on cutting costs through not providing things like sick days or safe working conditions. There are always people desperate enough to take exploitative/unsafe jobs. These jobs should not exist and all companies should compete under the same rules.
  - kepler1 4y ago
    I think we're talking on orthogonal lines. It's not companies who are competing, but workers who are competing with each other for jobs and being willing to take those jobs. If the employment conditions are transparent and not unsafe physically (which is related to having full information about what you're signing up for), why is sick days something that shouldn't be open to negotiation or a person willing to agree to have more or fewer of them? Suppose that a person is young and healthy and believes he/she doesn't need a lot of sick days. Why is it unreasonable for him/her to agree to a job that doesn't offer extra sick days? What's the logic / principle there? Is it because sickness is unpredictable and an employee shouldn't have to suffer from something unexpected? Is it an information asymmetry argument?

ledauphin 4y ago

counterpoint - most jobs require a certain amount of training, and once you have started a "career" in that job, you often cannot switch to any job with equivalent salary, despite the fact that such jobs exist. IOW, it's rarely about _taking_ the job and more about not wanting to take a significant step backward when you decide you're fed up with it.

OkayPhysicist 4y ago

If we want to give the companies a carte blanche to abuse their employees, then worker retaliation should be back on the table. After all, the government is only artificially fighting against the natural forces of tar and feathering.

UtopiaPunk 4y ago

"We unfortunately have too many people willing to take these jobs at the pay and benefits / conditions offered." Our economic system demands that most people must work some kind of job in order to have shelter and food. Some people are working 2 or 3 terrible jobs because that's what is needed to make rent. They can't hold out for a job that provides a humane level of pay and working conditions. Furthermore, capitalist economies rely on a certain percentage of workers (roughly 5%) are unemployed at any given time. This creates an environment where workers are generally desperate and bosses have power. It's barbaric that a certain number of people are guaranteed to be unemployed when employment is required to have shelter, food, and healthcare. The COVID pandemic did a lot of weird things that moved some power to workers. There were stronger unemployment protections and eviction moratoriums, so more workers could actually afford to hold out for better offers as unemployment was not awful. And the unemployment rate dropped as workers took early retirement or, frankly, died. Now pandemic protections are ending and inflation is eating into those wage gains. The way workers gain any lasting power is to gain stronger bargaining power. That means unions.