5 ms·

Yes and no. This subject somewhat angers me. Yes people like Walmart and Amazon workers need protection form maltreatment. Definitely. This should be built int

by csmuk 13y ago

Yes and no. This subject somewhat angers me. Yes people like Walmart and Amazon workers need protection form maltreatment. Definitely. This should be built into the law though, not into unions. And no because the existing unions don't really protect people. If you look at RMT, Unison and NUT they regularly pop up just to cause trouble. From a perspective of people having to consume services offered by their staff regularly, they want masses of additional pay and do not improve standards along the way at all. They are simply allowing the incompetent to be propped up by the good staff. Also, the professional minority who agree that this is the case are forced to be dragged into union ballots and vote with other staff in favour of strike action regularly in fear of retaliation from their colleagues. Also let us not forget a much greater threat of exploitation: being forced to work with no pay under the guise of "training". This is happening a lot in the UK a the moment as the Job Centre has been pushing for people to do this by threatening to cut their benefits if they don't do it. The result is people being forced to work for no compensation and having to pay for travel expenses out of their own (literally destitute) pocket. The employers don't have to pay the staff either. The result of this is a dangled carrot of "if you do this, after 6-12 months we'll give you a permanent paid position". This inevitably results in being laid off as not needed immediately when they agreed to take you on. There are even posters going up in Job Centres telling people "try staff for free": http://imgur.com/SdWpgvx http://imgur.com/SdWpgvx Edit: Also I've spoken to some business associates (the sort who worship the fully paid up Lord Fuckwit Sugar himself) and are applauding this as a great way of building their businesses. This is simply unethical. I've been pretty much excluded for mentioning the inevitable "abhorrent slavery" point, not that I care.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
This is happening a lot in the UK a the moment as the Job Centre has been pushing for people to do this by threatening to cut their benefits if they don't do it. The result is people being forced to work for no compensation and having to pay for travel expenses out of their own (literally destitute) pocket. From the perspective of the employee/trainee, the only difference I see between this situation and actual employment is that the name on the check is different from the name of the employer. So what's the big deal?
- Nursie 13y ago
  They have to pay their own travel expenses, if you do the calculations then they get less than minimum wage and they are threatened with having even that withdrawn. And the taxpayer foots the bill instead of the business, which as a societal meme can just go f*ck itself.
- arethuza 13y ago
  Exactly, far better off to have the unemployed doing something rather than sitting round watching daytime TV. [Note that I say that as someone who actually has signed on for a bit when I was a daft kid and done some pretty ghastly manual laboring jobs in agriculture and fishing]. Mind you I think having to pay their own travelling expenses is a bit harsh (mind you the first employment I had was for 12-15 hour shifts and I had to cycle 45 minutes to get there and back.)
  - csmuk 13y ago
    Disagree: 1. The business should foot the wage. 2. The wage should be fair. Doing something isn't actually necessarily possible. We've automated a big chunk of people's jobs away. There isn't necessarily a place for everyone to work now. Not only that, we're living longer. Provisions need to be made for these facts.
    - arethuza 13y ago
      You could argue as the loaded cost of employing anyone is a good bit more than their salary that any employer is making a contribution. (Usual rule of thumb is ~50% of salary for fully loaded costs - and that's without any thing fancy).
      - Nursie 13y ago
        You could, but it would be disingenuous. Some of the cost of employment in the UK is employers national insurance (effectively a kind o tax that gets paid by the company before the employee even sees the pay check). This is not present here. Neither is there any question of employee rights, or employer responsibilities because there's no employment.
buro9 13y ago
> This should be built into the law though, not into unions. But how do the low-paid and exploited workers get the kind of representation and voice that results in the law makers and policy makers hearing it? If the workers are not valued enough to be paid well, do you think the employers themselves value the employees enough to listen? That is the point of the union. Some unions do indeed give the entire concept a bad rep, but the fundamentals of "workers coming together to acquire a collective voice to be heard" isn't a bad one. The output of that voice is law. Such as equality in the workplace, safety regulations, working hour regulations, etc, etc. Few of those laws would have come to pass without the worker being able to have a representative and voice. I see parallels between democratic representation in society and representation against powerful employers. To some extent, given globalisation, multi-national corporations and the power of corporations in political lobbying I'm becoming more of the view that multi-national unions need to come into existence. And not to hit the "strike" button every 10 seconds. Withdrawal of labour is a nuclear option and likely no-one will ever win when it occurs. But... to have that kind of representation and voice against corporations that increasingly cannot be held to account by sovereign governments and local lawmakers seems an important check. We remain people. Work isn't the be-all and end-all, and people should be valued. If a business cannot sustain itself by valuing people fairly and with respect...then the business is at fault. We shouldn't create human misery, and people who work for us (entrepreneurs, leaders, decision makers in companies) do deserve a voice and representation to hold us to account and constrain us (to some extent).
mjn 13y ago
Denmark has something that sort of works like this, but imo it works okay and is usually not exploitative, partly because of several differences: 1. It's not completely free to businesses or completely unpaid: the person continues to receive pay in the form of benefits from the unemployment fund, but the company kicks in 17% on top of that as a pension contribution. This is partly to ensure the company takes it seriously, and partly because making sure everyone has a funded pension is in the state's interest. 2. The job must actually provide relevant training, not just gruntwork. The company must propose a training programme and learning outcomes, and there are periodic evaluations of the company's performance in fulfilling these. 3. It's opt-in; you are never required to do it. It's an option offered to people who are deemed to be having trouble finding a job because of lack of in-demand skills. One option among several: others include vocational courses run by the municipality, going back to school for an adult masters degree, etc. 4. The benefits are at a reasonably high level, so things like paying for transit are not a problem. Minimum benefit is around $1800/mo, I think.
- csmuk 13y ago
  That's great and exactly where we should be. Glad to see some countries have actually hit themselves with the clue stick.
RyanMcGreal 13y ago
> This should be built into the law though, not into unions. Who do you think is going to get these protections built into the law? Who do you think has been responsible for getting the protections we do have built into the law? It's unions. They're not perfect (no organization of people ever is), but they're a hell of a lot better than an alternative economy in which unions don't exist, all workers are atomized and disorganized and the public policy dialogue is entirely dominated by what large corporations want you to think.

by csmuk 13y ago

yummyfajitas 13y ago

This is happening a lot in the UK a the moment as the Job Centre has been pushing for people to do this by threatening to cut their benefits if they don't do it. The result is people being forced to work for no compensation and having to pay for travel expenses out of their own (literally destitute) pocket. From the perspective of the employee/trainee, the only difference I see between this situation and actual employment is that the name on the check is different from the name of the employer. So what's the big deal?

Nursie 13y ago
They have to pay their own travel expenses, if you do the calculations then they get less than minimum wage and they are threatened with having even that withdrawn. And the taxpayer foots the bill instead of the business, which as a societal meme can just go f*ck itself.
arethuza 13y ago
Exactly, far better off to have the unemployed doing something rather than sitting round watching daytime TV. [Note that I say that as someone who actually has signed on for a bit when I was a daft kid and done some pretty ghastly manual laboring jobs in agriculture and fishing]. Mind you I think having to pay their own travelling expenses is a bit harsh (mind you the first employment I had was for 12-15 hour shifts and I had to cycle 45 minutes to get there and back.)
- csmuk 13y ago
  Disagree: 1. The business should foot the wage. 2. The wage should be fair. Doing something isn't actually necessarily possible. We've automated a big chunk of people's jobs away. There isn't necessarily a place for everyone to work now. Not only that, we're living longer. Provisions need to be made for these facts.
  - arethuza 13y ago
    You could argue as the loaded cost of employing anyone is a good bit more than their salary that any employer is making a contribution. (Usual rule of thumb is ~50% of salary for fully loaded costs - and that's without any thing fancy).
    - Nursie 13y ago
      You could, but it would be disingenuous. Some of the cost of employment in the UK is employers national insurance (effectively a kind o tax that gets paid by the company before the employee even sees the pay check). This is not present here. Neither is there any question of employee rights, or employer responsibilities because there's no employment.

buro9 13y ago

> This should be built into the law though, not into unions. But how do the low-paid and exploited workers get the kind of representation and voice that results in the law makers and policy makers hearing it? If the workers are not valued enough to be paid well, do you think the employers themselves value the employees enough to listen? That is the point of the union. Some unions do indeed give the entire concept a bad rep, but the fundamentals of "workers coming together to acquire a collective voice to be heard" isn't a bad one. The output of that voice is law. Such as equality in the workplace, safety regulations, working hour regulations, etc, etc. Few of those laws would have come to pass without the worker being able to have a representative and voice. I see parallels between democratic representation in society and representation against powerful employers. To some extent, given globalisation, multi-national corporations and the power of corporations in political lobbying I'm becoming more of the view that multi-national unions need to come into existence. And not to hit the "strike" button every 10 seconds. Withdrawal of labour is a nuclear option and likely no-one will ever win when it occurs. But... to have that kind of representation and voice against corporations that increasingly cannot be held to account by sovereign governments and local lawmakers seems an important check. We remain people. Work isn't the be-all and end-all, and people should be valued. If a business cannot sustain itself by valuing people fairly and with respect...then the business is at fault. We shouldn't create human misery, and people who work for us (entrepreneurs, leaders, decision makers in companies) do deserve a voice and representation to hold us to account and constrain us (to some extent).

mjn 13y ago

Denmark has something that sort of works like this, but imo it works okay and is usually not exploitative, partly because of several differences: 1. It's not completely free to businesses or completely unpaid: the person continues to receive pay in the form of benefits from the unemployment fund, but the company kicks in 17% on top of that as a pension contribution. This is partly to ensure the company takes it seriously, and partly because making sure everyone has a funded pension is in the state's interest. 2. The job must actually provide relevant training, not just gruntwork. The company must propose a training programme and learning outcomes, and there are periodic evaluations of the company's performance in fulfilling these. 3. It's opt-in; you are never required to do it. It's an option offered to people who are deemed to be having trouble finding a job because of lack of in-demand skills. One option among several: others include vocational courses run by the municipality, going back to school for an adult masters degree, etc. 4. The benefits are at a reasonably high level, so things like paying for transit are not a problem. Minimum benefit is around $1800/mo, I think.

csmuk 13y ago
That's great and exactly where we should be. Glad to see some countries have actually hit themselves with the clue stick.

RyanMcGreal 13y ago

> This should be built into the law though, not into unions. Who do you think is going to get these protections built into the law? Who do you think has been responsible for getting the protections we do have built into the law? It's unions. They're not perfect (no organization of people ever is), but they're a hell of a lot better than an alternative economy in which unions don't exist, all workers are atomized and disorganized and the public policy dialogue is entirely dominated by what large corporations want you to think.