4 ms·

> companies are using their resources Precisely the OP’s point it seems. The company is using the company’s own resources whereas the employees are using someo

> companies are using their resources Precisely the OP’s point it seems. The company is using the company’s own resources whereas the employees are using someone else’s resources ie the company’s resources. Why is it justifiable to violate the property rights of the company owners to exert influence on jobs that the company also owns?

csb6 3y ago
> Why is it justifiable to violate the property rights of the company owners to exert influence on jobs that the company also owns? By that logic, all regulation and legislation restricting the behavior of companies and their interactions with employees on their own property is unjustifiable, including requiring certain safety measures or working conditions or permitting health/safety inspectors access to workspaces without agreement of the property owner. Some libertarians do hold these views, but I think it is important to note that these consequences are what that logic implies. The argument against absolute deference to property rights is that under the U.S. legal framework employees also have rights, which in some cases (in diminishing number) are given more importance than the company’s property rights. According to legislation, this includes the ability to organize labor unions and communicate with organizers during non-work hours.
- nyokodo 3y ago
  > By that logic, all regulation and legislation restricting the behavior of companies and their interactions with employees on their own property is unjustifiable Why is that an implication? You haven’t provided a logical justification although taking someone else’s argument and taking it to absurd extremes is a common rhetorical technique. No, to genuinely protect life and limb a reasonable argument can be made to have regulations but we are far from that in this Amazon scenario. These are legally created rights arbitrarily created by the government and they have no guarantee to be justified and in this case do violate the property rights of the company. The workers can organize with widely available communication technology that they own.
  - csb6 3y ago
    This was the point: > Why is it justifiable to violate the property rights of the company owners to exert influence on jobs that the company also owns? Health/safety regulations and inspections are examples of things that often “violate the property rights of the company owners to exert influence on jobs that the company also owns”. The original point did not mention any exceptions whatsoever relating to “life and limb”. Now it seems like you’ve clarified that you do not think property rights are absolute, but the original post did not make that obvious.
lisasays 3y ago
Why is it justifiable to violate the property rights of the company owners to exert influence on jobs that the company also owns? Again - to level the playing field. Because there's also this thing known as "human rights", which are generally more important than property rights.
- nyokodo 3y ago
  > “human rights” You’re right that genuine human rights trump property rights but there are no human rights at stake here. It’s not a human right to dispose of someone else’s property to exert control over someone else’s job when there is no threat to life and you can take your labor somewhere else. The situation under contention is far removed from human rights.
  - lisasays 3y ago
    The situation under contention is far removed from human rights. Completely disagree - the situation couldn't be more fundamental to human rights. The simple right to earn a decent living, under fair working conditions, without fear of harassment from some so-called company owner, steaming drunk with power based on some gobbledygook about absolute "property rights" that he read on the internet. And I think we can leave it at that.
    - nyokodo 3y ago
      > The simple right to earn a decent living, under fair working conditions, without fear of harassment No one’s rights to any of that is threatened by having to use your own devices/word of mouth to organize a labor union.
      - lisasays 3y ago
        The crucial assumption that this statement relies upon: namely, that "corporate rights are equivalent to human rights" -- is a perfect example of the gobbledygook I was referring to.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
Because human rights > property rights. Or at least that is the ongoing macro negotiation going on.
zardo 3y ago
>Why is it justifiable to violate the property rights of the company owners? The law is meant to defuse violent labor struggles, responding to actual events that occured. In particular here, the problem of the owners hiring thugs to violently break up union meetings.

csb6 3y ago

> Why is it justifiable to violate the property rights of the company owners to exert influence on jobs that the company also owns? By that logic, all regulation and legislation restricting the behavior of companies and their interactions with employees on their own property is unjustifiable, including requiring certain safety measures or working conditions or permitting health/safety inspectors access to workspaces without agreement of the property owner. Some libertarians do hold these views, but I think it is important to note that these consequences are what that logic implies. The argument against absolute deference to property rights is that under the U.S. legal framework employees also have rights, which in some cases (in diminishing number) are given more importance than the company’s property rights. According to legislation, this includes the ability to organize labor unions and communicate with organizers during non-work hours.

nyokodo 3y ago
> By that logic, all regulation and legislation restricting the behavior of companies and their interactions with employees on their own property is unjustifiable Why is that an implication? You haven’t provided a logical justification although taking someone else’s argument and taking it to absurd extremes is a common rhetorical technique. No, to genuinely protect life and limb a reasonable argument can be made to have regulations but we are far from that in this Amazon scenario. These are legally created rights arbitrarily created by the government and they have no guarantee to be justified and in this case do violate the property rights of the company. The workers can organize with widely available communication technology that they own.
- csb6 3y ago
  This was the point: > Why is it justifiable to violate the property rights of the company owners to exert influence on jobs that the company also owns? Health/safety regulations and inspections are examples of things that often “violate the property rights of the company owners to exert influence on jobs that the company also owns”. The original point did not mention any exceptions whatsoever relating to “life and limb”. Now it seems like you’ve clarified that you do not think property rights are absolute, but the original post did not make that obvious.

lisasays 3y ago

Why is it justifiable to violate the property rights of the company owners to exert influence on jobs that the company also owns? Again - to level the playing field. Because there's also this thing known as "human rights", which are generally more important than property rights.

nyokodo 3y ago
> “human rights” You’re right that genuine human rights trump property rights but there are no human rights at stake here. It’s not a human right to dispose of someone else’s property to exert control over someone else’s job when there is no threat to life and you can take your labor somewhere else. The situation under contention is far removed from human rights.
- lisasays 3y ago
  The situation under contention is far removed from human rights. Completely disagree - the situation couldn't be more fundamental to human rights. The simple right to earn a decent living, under fair working conditions, without fear of harassment from some so-called company owner, steaming drunk with power based on some gobbledygook about absolute "property rights" that he read on the internet. And I think we can leave it at that.
  - nyokodo 3y ago
    > The simple right to earn a decent living, under fair working conditions, without fear of harassment No one’s rights to any of that is threatened by having to use your own devices/word of mouth to organize a labor union.
    - lisasays 3y ago
      The crucial assumption that this statement relies upon: namely, that "corporate rights are equivalent to human rights" -- is a perfect example of the gobbledygook I was referring to.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

Because human rights > property rights. Or at least that is the ongoing macro negotiation going on.

zardo 3y ago

>Why is it justifiable to violate the property rights of the company owners? The law is meant to defuse violent labor struggles, responding to actual events that occured. In particular here, the problem of the owners hiring thugs to violently break up union meetings.