5 ms·

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 t

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.

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.