3 ms·

> shouldn't we put more blame on the ones who freely exploit loyal workers? Problem is, there is no realistic way for that group to be able determine if what t

> shouldn't we put more blame on the ones who freely exploit loyal workers? Problem is, there is no realistic way for that group to be able determine if what they are doing is exploitation or a perfectly fair trade without the worker telling them. That is why the onus falls on the worker. Only the worker knows their situation. If the worker happily shows up and doesn't make it clear that something is wrong, one has to assume that the trade is considered fair. That is what the information available is telling.

armada651 3y ago
This is a perfectly good explanation of how capitalism works, especially if you operate your company by the numbers, but we don't have to accept that as the way things are. We already have social policies to protect workers from exploitation even if they themselves do not consider it exploitation, those policies need to be strengthened. At the very least we should mandate that overtime is compensated to a degree that represents the cost to society of burnt out workers who require healthcare or exit the labor force entirely.
- randomdata 3y ago
  Technically the policies you speak of are not to prevent exploitation per se (although that may happen as a side effect), but to limit the competitiveness with other workers. Workers have shown that they can be quite nasty towards each other, even accepting exploitation if it means they can screw over the guy beside them, and that is what we seek to control. However, the topic of discussion is about blaming the exploiters. Laws to try and help prevent exploitation does not speak to that.
trickstra 3y ago
If I pay one guy X and another guy half as much, but the second guy works much better, I know it's not fair, they don't need to tell me. Doesn't matter that they both agreed to it.
- randomdata 3y ago
  That does not imply the worker is being exploited. It may even be that the guy being paid X and delivering less value is exploiting you.
  - trickstra 3y ago
    But at least I know if I'm ok with it, so it can't be exploitation. If I wasn't ok with it, I could change it. The hardworker doesn't even know he's getting paid less (because I made sure of it in contract). See the problem?
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Being paid less than someone else does not imply exploitation. Contractually preventing a worker from talking to other employers, hindering price discovery, may be exploitation, but one would know about it before entering into the contract and would only do so if they are okay with it. So long as the worker is able to talk to other employers, then they can learn just as much about the market as you are able to learn when talking to other workers. That said, even if said contract was signed, it is unlikely a court would uphold such an obligation, especially when there is nothing offered in kind. They generally do not take kindly to contracts that completely remove one's ability to stably earn a living. The state doesn't want you to become its problem.

armada651 3y ago

This is a perfectly good explanation of how capitalism works, especially if you operate your company by the numbers, but we don't have to accept that as the way things are. We already have social policies to protect workers from exploitation even if they themselves do not consider it exploitation, those policies need to be strengthened. At the very least we should mandate that overtime is compensated to a degree that represents the cost to society of burnt out workers who require healthcare or exit the labor force entirely.

randomdata 3y ago
Technically the policies you speak of are not to prevent exploitation per se (although that may happen as a side effect), but to limit the competitiveness with other workers. Workers have shown that they can be quite nasty towards each other, even accepting exploitation if it means they can screw over the guy beside them, and that is what we seek to control. However, the topic of discussion is about blaming the exploiters. Laws to try and help prevent exploitation does not speak to that.

trickstra 3y ago

If I pay one guy X and another guy half as much, but the second guy works much better, I know it's not fair, they don't need to tell me. Doesn't matter that they both agreed to it.

randomdata 3y ago
That does not imply the worker is being exploited. It may even be that the guy being paid X and delivering less value is exploiting you.
- trickstra 3y ago
  But at least I know if I'm ok with it, so it can't be exploitation. If I wasn't ok with it, I could change it. The hardworker doesn't even know he's getting paid less (because I made sure of it in contract). See the problem?
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Being paid less than someone else does not imply exploitation. Contractually preventing a worker from talking to other employers, hindering price discovery, may be exploitation, but one would know about it before entering into the contract and would only do so if they are okay with it. So long as the worker is able to talk to other employers, then they can learn just as much about the market as you are able to learn when talking to other workers. That said, even if said contract was signed, it is unlikely a court would uphold such an obligation, especially when there is nothing offered in kind. They generally do not take kindly to contracts that completely remove one's ability to stably earn a living. The state doesn't want you to become its problem.