3 ms·

The reason behind labor standards is to cut off the the distribution curve at a lower limit. If you leave market forces at work, you'll get people working at ne

by Joeri 15y ago

The reason behind labor standards is to cut off the the distribution curve at a lower limit. If you leave market forces at work, you'll get people working at near slavery conditions because they lack other economic choices (or they think hey do, which is the same thing). Remember that some people used to choose slavery before it was outlawed. The lawmaker sets minimum standards so people don't get exploited because they come from a weak negotiating position. Specifically speaking to this law, i don't think it matters as much because IT professionals don't have a weak bargaining position.

Daniel_Newby 15y ago
> The reason behind labor standards is to cut off the the distribution curve at a lower limit. The people below the limit do not magically increase their productivity above the limit. It simply becomss illegal for them to work. They are the American untouchables, farmed by welfare agencies for grant money or simply discarded.
locopati 15y ago
Expanding on your comments... The reason behind labor standards is that without them companies will do everything in their power to take advantage of their workforce (see early 20th century America, specifically coal mining in Appalachia, which, to be honest, hasn't changed all that much - see modern day, specifically the Upper Branch mine disaster and Massey Energy). Labor standards enforce a minimum acceptable standard and prevent the kind of race-to-the-bottom we see now (between states, between regions, between countries). We all need to remember that many of our positions are the exception, not the rule (i.e. we often have the flexibility and freedom to negotiate) There are still hourly contracts in IT and these would be affected by a rule like this. MS gamed the system in WA state to avoid paying overtime while still being able to take advantage of hiring contractors instead of salaried employees (this was in the 90s - unsure if the same system is still in place). Meanwhile, chipping away at the higher salaried workers just makes it easier to chip away at the lower salaried workers (e.g. retail workers, restaurant workers). We're all in this together.

by Joeri 15y ago

Daniel_Newby 15y ago

> The reason behind labor standards is to cut off the the distribution curve at a lower limit. The people below the limit do not magically increase their productivity above the limit. It simply becomss illegal for them to work. They are the American untouchables, farmed by welfare agencies for grant money or simply discarded.

locopati 15y ago

Expanding on your comments... The reason behind labor standards is that without them companies will do everything in their power to take advantage of their workforce (see early 20th century America, specifically coal mining in Appalachia, which, to be honest, hasn't changed all that much - see modern day, specifically the Upper Branch mine disaster and Massey Energy). Labor standards enforce a minimum acceptable standard and prevent the kind of race-to-the-bottom we see now (between states, between regions, between countries). We all need to remember that many of our positions are the exception, not the rule (i.e. we often have the flexibility and freedom to negotiate) There are still hourly contracts in IT and these would be affected by a rule like this. MS gamed the system in WA state to avoid paying overtime while still being able to take advantage of hiring contractors instead of salaried employees (this was in the 90s - unsure if the same system is still in place). Meanwhile, chipping away at the higher salaried workers just makes it easier to chip away at the lower salaried workers (e.g. retail workers, restaurant workers). We're all in this together.