3 ms·

> An employer can fire employees for literally no reason, right? Not where I am located, no. In some places, sure. > The real solution here would be that you

> An employer can fire employees for literally no reason, right? Not where I am located, no. In some places, sure. > The real solution here would be that you can't fire someone just because someone else is more productive... Is it? We also already have the no email/calls law on the books here. In fact, we have all kinds of labour laws. By the same logic, if you can't fire someone for charging too much you shouldn't need minimum wage, but we have that too. If you can't fire someone for refusing to work in unsafe conditions, you shouldn't need workplace safety laws either, but we also have those. And for good reason. It is not the threat of being fired, at least not exclusively so, that creates these competitive conditions.

proc0 3y ago
I don't think this is about safety though. Some laws are justified, but answering emails after hours seems a bit of a stretch. Someone getting physically injured is bad enough to require a law, but someone getting a little more stressed or having to look for a better match in a different company is not bad enough for government to be stepping in. There is nothing wrong with working after 5pm, it's really a matter of preference, and government enforcing one way or another would be a huge mistake. To flip your examples, why not have government enforce everything about all jobs? Why not have all jobs be 9-5, in office, only 5 meetings a week, etc. etc., and if companies deviate they have to pay money... hopefully you can see that would destroy the economy with companies grinding to halt in terms of productivity. I think this line is somewhere around physical injuries or really extreme scenarios, and yes this means that right now even in the U.S., the gov. (especially CA) has too many laws around employment.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > Someone getting physically injured is bad enough to require a law Yet, as a rule, we don't have laws against people doing unsafe things. You can, say, drive a car as fast as you want on private property. Only when you create risk for other people on public roads is your speed legally constrained. You can't legally engage in an unsafe workplace environment because it compels other workers to do the same and the general public doesn't want to get drawn into that. If it were just about your personal safety, who cares? Nobody gives a rat's ass if you choose to hurt yourself so long as it doesn't impact anyone else. > here is nothing wrong with working after 5pm, it's really a matter of preference Different groups of people call for different things, so your milage may vary, but said law in this jurisdiction accounts for that. > why not have government enforce everything about all jobs? Government isn't some magical thing, it's just a group of employees who work for the people to clean up outliers who are compromising the will of the general public. The people have busy lives and don't sit around and think about every last scenario that could have a law for, they only call to action when something is bothering them. > Why not have all jobs be 9-5, in office, only 5 meetings a week, etc. etc. What makes you think this is bothering the people?
  - proc0 3y ago
    > What makes you think this is bothering the people? How many people are bothered by the after-hour emails? Are there statistics on that? I would be surprised if it was the majority, or the "general public". This problem is being tackled by a small group of politicians who believe it is something that will benefit EVERYONE. This is were we differ on what is really happening here. I think politicians are trying to architect society more so than listening to the majority of people, at least in this instance. Sure government is a group of people that are trying to implement what people want, but at least in the US, we elect representatives that have quite a bit of flexibility to suggest policies that are not really asked for, especially in California.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > This problem is being tackled by a small group of politicians who believe it is something that will benefit EVERYONE. So the actual problem here is that you are living under a dictatorship. Sure, history has shown that doesn't tend to work out. I'm afraid in that case you can't pass the work off to the hired hands, though, you're going to have to get your own hands dirty.
      - proc0 3y ago
        If you follow California politics, that statement is not that far off.

proc0 3y ago

I don't think this is about safety though. Some laws are justified, but answering emails after hours seems a bit of a stretch. Someone getting physically injured is bad enough to require a law, but someone getting a little more stressed or having to look for a better match in a different company is not bad enough for government to be stepping in. There is nothing wrong with working after 5pm, it's really a matter of preference, and government enforcing one way or another would be a huge mistake. To flip your examples, why not have government enforce everything about all jobs? Why not have all jobs be 9-5, in office, only 5 meetings a week, etc. etc., and if companies deviate they have to pay money... hopefully you can see that would destroy the economy with companies grinding to halt in terms of productivity. I think this line is somewhere around physical injuries or really extreme scenarios, and yes this means that right now even in the U.S., the gov. (especially CA) has too many laws around employment.

randomdata 3y ago
> Someone getting physically injured is bad enough to require a law Yet, as a rule, we don't have laws against people doing unsafe things. You can, say, drive a car as fast as you want on private property. Only when you create risk for other people on public roads is your speed legally constrained. You can't legally engage in an unsafe workplace environment because it compels other workers to do the same and the general public doesn't want to get drawn into that. If it were just about your personal safety, who cares? Nobody gives a rat's ass if you choose to hurt yourself so long as it doesn't impact anyone else. > here is nothing wrong with working after 5pm, it's really a matter of preference Different groups of people call for different things, so your milage may vary, but said law in this jurisdiction accounts for that. > why not have government enforce everything about all jobs? Government isn't some magical thing, it's just a group of employees who work for the people to clean up outliers who are compromising the will of the general public. The people have busy lives and don't sit around and think about every last scenario that could have a law for, they only call to action when something is bothering them. > Why not have all jobs be 9-5, in office, only 5 meetings a week, etc. etc. What makes you think this is bothering the people?
- proc0 3y ago
  > What makes you think this is bothering the people? How many people are bothered by the after-hour emails? Are there statistics on that? I would be surprised if it was the majority, or the "general public". This problem is being tackled by a small group of politicians who believe it is something that will benefit EVERYONE. This is were we differ on what is really happening here. I think politicians are trying to architect society more so than listening to the majority of people, at least in this instance. Sure government is a group of people that are trying to implement what people want, but at least in the US, we elect representatives that have quite a bit of flexibility to suggest policies that are not really asked for, especially in California.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > This problem is being tackled by a small group of politicians who believe it is something that will benefit EVERYONE. So the actual problem here is that you are living under a dictatorship. Sure, history has shown that doesn't tend to work out. I'm afraid in that case you can't pass the work off to the hired hands, though, you're going to have to get your own hands dirty.
    - proc0 3y ago
      If you follow California politics, that statement is not that far off.