4 ms·

> Then consider an employer who demands more of the employee than they can safely give—what choices does the employee have? I don't agree much with that. BUT!

> Then consider an employer who demands more of the employee than they can safely give—what choices does the employee have? I don't agree much with that. BUT! I am not American, nor do I live there. So YMMV. > Violate the law in order to keep getting the money they need to survive, or choose not to violate the law and put themselves at very high risk of firing (and thus the above consequences). I think that's the biggest issue. I was talking more from a "how it should be" kind of view, or how I perceive it from my central European background. You're reality might be wildly different, and I lack the experience to understand that I think. My overarching point is: if you start to consider that the system is bad, how do you stop everyone else from doing the exact same thing, breaking laws to live? Where do you draw the line?

mcny 3y ago
Edit: for the US We start sending CEOs and members of the board to prison (preferably for life) for acts of a company's employees, contractors, and agents in service of the company. Rinse and repeat until companies get the message.
danaris 3y ago
It's (fortunately) not quite that bad for everyone in America, but that's more because most employers still feel themselves to be bound by the law, at least to some extent, than it is because most employees have meaningful recourse if they're told to break it. The situation is changing with the new wave of unionization here, but the 40 years since Reagan shattered the union movement have not been good ones for us. > My overarching point is: if you start to consider that the system is bad, how do you stop everyone else from doing the exact same thing, breaking laws to live? Where do you draw the line? I think that there is a meaningful distinction between "I choose to break the law to survive" and "I choose not to refuse an order to break the law, because to do so risks losing the ability to survive." That said, I think that there's an argument to be made that a society where the laws are used to punish the poor for trying to do the bare minimum to survive is a society that throws all law into contempt.
- RamblingCTO 3y ago
  I do agree with your points! And fingers crossed the situation improves for your country, it's overdue.

mcny 3y ago

Edit: for the US We start sending CEOs and members of the board to prison (preferably for life) for acts of a company's employees, contractors, and agents in service of the company. Rinse and repeat until companies get the message.

danaris 3y ago

It's (fortunately) not quite that bad for everyone in America, but that's more because most employers still feel themselves to be bound by the law, at least to some extent, than it is because most employees have meaningful recourse if they're told to break it. The situation is changing with the new wave of unionization here, but the 40 years since Reagan shattered the union movement have not been good ones for us. > My overarching point is: if you start to consider that the system is bad, how do you stop everyone else from doing the exact same thing, breaking laws to live? Where do you draw the line? I think that there is a meaningful distinction between "I choose to break the law to survive" and "I choose not to refuse an order to break the law, because to do so risks losing the ability to survive." That said, I think that there's an argument to be made that a society where the laws are used to punish the poor for trying to do the bare minimum to survive is a society that throws all law into contempt.

RamblingCTO 3y ago
I do agree with your points! And fingers crossed the situation improves for your country, it's overdue.