3 ms·

> because what you’re describing here is an employee who has _far_ more rights than an employer How so? What rights do they have that the employer doesn't? Fr

by messe 4y ago

> because what you’re describing here is an employee who has _far_ more rights than an employer How so? What rights do they have that the employer doesn't? From what I've gathered here, the employer can change their salary at will. The employee can't turn around and do that. The employer could presumably change their location of work, their hours, or even the job they've been hired to do, at will. This would all be protected against in the EU. Keeping in mind that I agree with you that I phrased my original statement poorly: more importantly, how do these additional rights that you're talking about translate to benefits for the employee?

AmericanChopper 4y ago
An employer in the US can’t change a salary at will either. What either party can do if they are no longer satisfied with the working arrangement is propose a change to it, and subsequently choose to terminate the arrangement if they are not satisfied with the response of the other party. Either party can propose basically any change they want, and terminate the arrangement any time they choose. What an employee “can do” is determined entirely by how much the market values their labor. I have proposed take it or leave it remuneration increases (as well as other changes to working conditions, such as location) to employers on many occasions, and they’ve nearly always been accepted.
- tptacek 4y ago
  There's no distinction between employers being able to issue an ultimatum on salary reduction and being able to change a salary at will. Virtually all of an employers authorities reduce to "this is what will happen, else we'll sever your employment".
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    There is a very clear distinction, because the employer has no ability to force you to continue working under the new conditions. There is essentially nothing they can do to prevent you from accepting a better offer elsewhere. If a person cannot find a better offer, then their problem is that the market does not value their labor enough to sustain the previous working conditions, not that their current employer exercised some tyrannical power over them. An employee also has exactly the same rights. They can offer a salary ultimatum, and terminate the relationship if it is not met, at any time they choose. Both parties have exactly the same entitlements in this scenario.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      This is like saying that an employer can't enforce an arbitrary dress code, because you could always quit rather than comply. Well, yeah, sure.
      - messe 4y ago
        That's because the person you're replying to hasn't acknowledged the power imbalance between employer and employee. Likely because they're lucky enough to have had it always work out in their favour so far: > I have proposed take it or leave it remuneration increases (as well as other changes to working conditions, such as location) to employers on many occasions, and they’ve nearly always been accepted. I don't think they realize that somebody on a minimum wage job in the US doesn't have the same ability to bargain that they do on their tech salary. Or, perhaps worse, they do realise that, and believe it's just.
      - AmericanChopper 4y ago
        It’s a lot more like saying that if you want two parties to participate in an agreement, then both of them must agree to it. Again the only thing special in the US is that both the employer and the employee can terminate the agreement at will, compared to say Europe, where only the employee has the right to terminate the agreement at will.
        tptacek 4y ago
        You're describing all the power any employer ever has in any circumstance (absent contracts), dating back to the Thirteenth Amendment.
    - fzeroracer 4y ago
      > If a person cannot find a better offer, then their problem is that the market does not value their labor enough to sustain the previous working conditions, not that their current employer exercised some tyrannical power over them. This is a sort of weird take on market conditions to try and downplay the amount of power an employer has over their employee. For example an employee that accepts an offer and moves across the US for a job opportunity only for things to change suddenly or for new conditions to be foisted upon them is SOL. They force you to adapt because you've invested a lot of time, money and effort and if you choose to leave, you lose out on unemployment benefits. An employer doesn't have to literally hire mercenaries in order to force you to work under bad conditions. There are plenty of ways to abuse soft power, lack of labor laws, healthcare tied to work etc that gives employers a lot of leverage, and new employers a lot of ways to abuse desperate fleeing employees.
- sli 4y ago
  > An employer in the US can’t change a salary at will either. Since when? Without a union or the ability to afford a lawyer, your compensation is entirely up to your employer's whim. Contracts are only useful if you can afford the time and money to fight for your side of it and also know you need to. And many classes of jobs don't involve employment contracts in any way the helps the employee (think service industry, etc.), the employers for those can do basically anything they want, anytime they want.

by messe 4y ago

AmericanChopper 4y ago

An employer in the US can’t change a salary at will either. What either party can do if they are no longer satisfied with the working arrangement is propose a change to it, and subsequently choose to terminate the arrangement if they are not satisfied with the response of the other party. Either party can propose basically any change they want, and terminate the arrangement any time they choose. What an employee “can do” is determined entirely by how much the market values their labor. I have proposed take it or leave it remuneration increases (as well as other changes to working conditions, such as location) to employers on many occasions, and they’ve nearly always been accepted.

tptacek 4y ago
There's no distinction between employers being able to issue an ultimatum on salary reduction and being able to change a salary at will. Virtually all of an employers authorities reduce to "this is what will happen, else we'll sever your employment".
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  There is a very clear distinction, because the employer has no ability to force you to continue working under the new conditions. There is essentially nothing they can do to prevent you from accepting a better offer elsewhere. If a person cannot find a better offer, then their problem is that the market does not value their labor enough to sustain the previous working conditions, not that their current employer exercised some tyrannical power over them. An employee also has exactly the same rights. They can offer a salary ultimatum, and terminate the relationship if it is not met, at any time they choose. Both parties have exactly the same entitlements in this scenario.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    This is like saying that an employer can't enforce an arbitrary dress code, because you could always quit rather than comply. Well, yeah, sure.
    - messe 4y ago
      That's because the person you're replying to hasn't acknowledged the power imbalance between employer and employee. Likely because they're lucky enough to have had it always work out in their favour so far: > I have proposed take it or leave it remuneration increases (as well as other changes to working conditions, such as location) to employers on many occasions, and they’ve nearly always been accepted. I don't think they realize that somebody on a minimum wage job in the US doesn't have the same ability to bargain that they do on their tech salary. Or, perhaps worse, they do realise that, and believe it's just.
    - AmericanChopper 4y ago
      It’s a lot more like saying that if you want two parties to participate in an agreement, then both of them must agree to it. Again the only thing special in the US is that both the employer and the employee can terminate the agreement at will, compared to say Europe, where only the employee has the right to terminate the agreement at will.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        You're describing all the power any employer ever has in any circumstance (absent contracts), dating back to the Thirteenth Amendment.
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    > If a person cannot find a better offer, then their problem is that the market does not value their labor enough to sustain the previous working conditions, not that their current employer exercised some tyrannical power over them. This is a sort of weird take on market conditions to try and downplay the amount of power an employer has over their employee. For example an employee that accepts an offer and moves across the US for a job opportunity only for things to change suddenly or for new conditions to be foisted upon them is SOL. They force you to adapt because you've invested a lot of time, money and effort and if you choose to leave, you lose out on unemployment benefits. An employer doesn't have to literally hire mercenaries in order to force you to work under bad conditions. There are plenty of ways to abuse soft power, lack of labor laws, healthcare tied to work etc that gives employers a lot of leverage, and new employers a lot of ways to abuse desperate fleeing employees.
sli 4y ago
> An employer in the US can’t change a salary at will either. Since when? Without a union or the ability to afford a lawyer, your compensation is entirely up to your employer's whim. Contracts are only useful if you can afford the time and money to fight for your side of it and also know you need to. And many classes of jobs don't involve employment contracts in any way the helps the employee (think service industry, etc.), the employers for those can do basically anything they want, anytime they want.