5 ms·

Except that there are plenty of people who are willing to work for these terms. I own several retail stores. Labor is by far the largest manageable cost and wh

by jaxn 12y ago

Except that there are plenty of people who are willing to work for these terms. I own several retail stores. Labor is by far the largest manageable cost and whether or not we make any profit is often a direct result of managing our labor cost. Re: being the one who should bear the risk, I am also the one who bears the responsibility to make sure they have a job tomorrow. If we don't make money then there is no job. Of course, the alternative is that we could raise prices so that we don't have to be ruthlessly efficient. But then, the market doesn't tend to like that.

ejstronge 12y ago
I appreciate your position as a business owner but I take issue with your assertion that it's okay to dismiss workers because 'there are plenty of people who are willing to work for' those terms. There are also other practices that people might be allowed to perform but which are prohibited - consider, for example, young children working for businesses outside the home. I don't think the willingness of labor is a reasonable metric to gauge the fairness of a business practice. In general, I think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that pro-business positions (even understandable ones like what you're mentioning) don't unfairly hurt workers - to be fair, 'flexible' hours have been mentioned by the Obama administration multiple times this summer.
- jaxn 12y ago
  The option isn't between a job with irregular hours and a job with regular hours. The option is between a job with irregular hours and no job. With all of the talk about raising the minimum wage drastically (small increments are fine), or something like requiring a certain minimum shift length, it will push small business owners towards non-human workers faster (automation and robots).
  - kazagistar 12y ago
    That sounds really good. The only possible way that would be bad is if we insist on keeping society in a state where not having a job is not an acceptable state. But why would we insist on everyone working, once we can automate most of what people do?
- mindcrime 12y ago
  In general, I think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that pro-business positions (even understandable ones like what you're mentioning) don't unfairly hurt workers And a lot of us think the government should have nothing to do with regulating based on some vague notion of "fairness". As long as no one is being compelled to take any action, or make any choice, through coercive violence/force, the government - IMO - ought to stay out of it.
  - brenschluss 12y ago
    What about non-coercive force? If someone scams your aging parents/grandparents into selling their house unfairly, do you think the government should stay out of it? After all, your parents/grandparents are the ones who willingly went ahead with the scam. Do you consider monopolies a coercive force? If a local cable company (say, Comcast) holds a de facto monopoly over local internet, imposing high fees and bad service on customers, do you think the government should stay out of it? After all, no one is being compelled to buy internet; it's everyone's choice not to.
    - mindcrime 12y ago
      Yeah, I was over-simplifying in the name of space. I generally lump force and fraud together in the category of things where use of force, in the name of self-defense, is acceptable. Do you consider monopolies a coercive force? Not as a rule, no.
      - brenschluss 12y ago
        So you're against the government regulating against anti-competition, anti-trust collusion in the marketplace?
        mindcrime 12y ago
        Yes.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
EliRivers 12y ago
Except that there are plenty of people who are willing to work for these terms. Doesn't make it OK. We're not machines. We're not robots. We're not fungible resource. We're people, and we object to creating a society in which the rich and powerful play off the less fortunate against each other, creating a race to the bottom until every employee is scratching out a bare existence in the knowledge that if they so much as ask for a five minute break they'll be fired and replaced with someone slightly more timid. Obviously the rich don't generally object to this. But then, the market doesn't tend to like that. Which is why we have government and unions. "The market" is meant to be a tool that serves people and makes life better. It's not perfect, it's not magic, and applied excessively it makes people miserable; there is very definitely a time to tell the religious caste in society that worships "the market" to get bent.
- jaxn 12y ago
  I didn't see your reply when I wrote my comment above. You are right that you are not robots. Currently irregular shift workers are cheaper than robots, but that will not be true forever and the more expensive we make workers, the cheaper robots become.
coldtea 12y ago
>Except that there are plenty of people who are willing to work for these terms That's not an excuse. In early 20th century there were kids of 10-14 years old, "willing" to work in coal mines, as "breaker boys" (and other worse jobs). https://www.google.com/search?q=breaker+boys&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=breaker+boys&tbm=isch Most advanced countries still outlawed it. You are only "chosing" to do a job if you're not directly pressed by starving or being homeless. When you can chose between job X or job Y. When you're hard pressed to do whatever comes your way, you're not "willing", you're forced.

by jaxn 12y ago

ejstronge 12y ago

I appreciate your position as a business owner but I take issue with your assertion that it's okay to dismiss workers because 'there are plenty of people who are willing to work for' those terms. There are also other practices that people might be allowed to perform but which are prohibited - consider, for example, young children working for businesses outside the home. I don't think the willingness of labor is a reasonable metric to gauge the fairness of a business practice. In general, I think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that pro-business positions (even understandable ones like what you're mentioning) don't unfairly hurt workers - to be fair, 'flexible' hours have been mentioned by the Obama administration multiple times this summer.

jaxn 12y ago
The option isn't between a job with irregular hours and a job with regular hours. The option is between a job with irregular hours and no job. With all of the talk about raising the minimum wage drastically (small increments are fine), or something like requiring a certain minimum shift length, it will push small business owners towards non-human workers faster (automation and robots).
- kazagistar 12y ago
  That sounds really good. The only possible way that would be bad is if we insist on keeping society in a state where not having a job is not an acceptable state. But why would we insist on everyone working, once we can automate most of what people do?
mindcrime 12y ago
In general, I think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that pro-business positions (even understandable ones like what you're mentioning) don't unfairly hurt workers And a lot of us think the government should have nothing to do with regulating based on some vague notion of "fairness". As long as no one is being compelled to take any action, or make any choice, through coercive violence/force, the government - IMO - ought to stay out of it.
- brenschluss 12y ago
  What about non-coercive force? If someone scams your aging parents/grandparents into selling their house unfairly, do you think the government should stay out of it? After all, your parents/grandparents are the ones who willingly went ahead with the scam. Do you consider monopolies a coercive force? If a local cable company (say, Comcast) holds a de facto monopoly over local internet, imposing high fees and bad service on customers, do you think the government should stay out of it? After all, no one is being compelled to buy internet; it's everyone's choice not to.
  - mindcrime 12y ago
    Yeah, I was over-simplifying in the name of space. I generally lump force and fraud together in the category of things where use of force, in the name of self-defense, is acceptable. Do you consider monopolies a coercive force? Not as a rule, no.
    - brenschluss 12y ago
      So you're against the government regulating against anti-competition, anti-trust collusion in the marketplace?
      - mindcrime 12y ago
        Yes.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

EliRivers 12y ago

Except that there are plenty of people who are willing to work for these terms. Doesn't make it OK. We're not machines. We're not robots. We're not fungible resource. We're people, and we object to creating a society in which the rich and powerful play off the less fortunate against each other, creating a race to the bottom until every employee is scratching out a bare existence in the knowledge that if they so much as ask for a five minute break they'll be fired and replaced with someone slightly more timid. Obviously the rich don't generally object to this. But then, the market doesn't tend to like that. Which is why we have government and unions. "The market" is meant to be a tool that serves people and makes life better. It's not perfect, it's not magic, and applied excessively it makes people miserable; there is very definitely a time to tell the religious caste in society that worships "the market" to get bent.

jaxn 12y ago
I didn't see your reply when I wrote my comment above. You are right that you are not robots. Currently irregular shift workers are cheaper than robots, but that will not be true forever and the more expensive we make workers, the cheaper robots become.

coldtea 12y ago

>Except that there are plenty of people who are willing to work for these terms That's not an excuse. In early 20th century there were kids of 10-14 years old, "willing" to work in coal mines, as "breaker boys" (and other worse jobs). https://www.google.com/search?q=breaker+boys&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=breaker+boys&tbm=isch Most advanced countries still outlawed it. You are only "chosing" to do a job if you're not directly pressed by starving or being homeless. When you can chose between job X or job Y. When you're hard pressed to do whatever comes your way, you're not "willing", you're forced.