3 ms·

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 ar

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.

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.