Employers deprive workers of a life

[cynic]

Highly paid professionals have some bargaining power. If long hours are standard they still get compensated financially for the loss of time to spend with family/friends, giving them options to go elsewhere in the future, or start their own business.

Semi-skilled wage earners near the breadline have less to bargain with, I mean where are they going to go? Another job that offers similiar conditions (once the overtime rates are gone),where every boss says “if you don’t like it, get lost”.

Yeah until all employers start demanding same.

Again that is, once overtime rates dissapear, just as you free market fundamentalists would like to see happen.

What I meant was I’m surprised that show was aired in the U.S. (not on-topic)

I also remember “Ever Decreasing Circles” and “To the Manor Born” and “Yes Priminister” classic 80’s BBC sitcoms

 

[Oscarthecat]

Highly paid professionals have some bargaining power. If long hours are standard they still get compensated financially for the loss of time to spend with family/friends, giving them options to go elsewhere in the future, or start their own business.

The ability to be self employed is not some kind of elitist thing limited to highly paid professionals. This is just typical socialist spin attempting to create an artificial distinction between the classes.

Skilled worker certainly have the choice to become self employed. Plumbers, mechanics, carpenters, painters, truckers, - these are all people who have a particular skill that others are happy to pay them for in the free market.

And as far as unskilled workers go- there are plenty of undocumented workers in this country who are essentially self-employed as unskilled workers. The very fact that they are here demonstrates that anyone, at any level, can be self employed, no matter how unskilled they are.

The government is the major barrier to anyone venturing out on their own- it costs money to pay for licenses, register yourself with the state, etc- not to mention the fact that some cities and states place limits on the number of new independent contractor licenses they’ll issue for specific professions each year.

Semi-skilled wage earners near the breadline have less to bargain with, I mean where are they going to go? Another job that offers similiar conditions (once the overtime rates are gone),where every boss says “if you don’t like it, get lost”.

Yeah until all employers start demanding same.

This was one of the basic reasons unions were formed- because workers have more bargaining power when they cooperate to achieve a common goal. CST regards this to be a right of all workers, incidentally.

Of course, many unions have become gigantic lobbying juggernauts, and it is difficult to tell where the union stops and the government begins.

But in principle, unions serve exactly the function you mentioned.

Again that is, once overtime rates dissapear, just as you free market fundamentalists would like to see happen.

Again, the only proof I need to show how ridiculous this point is is the common fact that employers voluntarily pay workers more than the minimum wage.

If what you were saying was true, then it would be unheard of that anyone earns more than the minimum wage.

So obviously, employers feel that there must be some good reason to pay their employees more than the minimum wage required by law.

 

[JMJ_coder]

This actually exists now- it is called the “hourly wage.” From what I understand, it is fairly common.

That has nothing to do with the point at hand. It’s not a question of earning a wage based on hours worked - it’s about allowing the employee to decide how many hours they wish to work (and not be penalized for it).

 

[JMJ_coder]

What are you talking about? If you don’t want to work 60+ hours per week, then you should find a job that doesn’t expect as many hours. If you quit one 60+ hours per week job and take another one just like it, then it sounds like you weren’t up front about your expectations during the interview.

If 60+ hours per week is normal for your chosen career, then maybe you chose the wrong career.

If you can’t find someone who will employ you for less than 60 hours per week, and really want to stay in your field, then take the risk and become self employed. Of course, people who are self-employed often work a lot more than those who are not- and they don’t get the satisfaction of blaming their boss for their long hours.

That is exactly my point. I feel that in too many situations, the employers don’t care if the worker doesn’t want to devote their entire waking life (and then some) to working. It’s now to the point that many are expected to be on call 24/7 - to be at their masters (I mean employers) beck and call.

Now certainly there are many workers who want or need to work 40+ hours a week. But there are certainly those who wish to only work maybe 20-30 hours a week (maybe from a home office). The only readily available jobs that offer such hours are usually in retail or food service that offer very low pay (as in you’d be hard pressed to live off of that wage even if you worked full time).

I think the major problem is that companies place capitol and production before human value.

 

[sanctamaria17]

I really do find it’s a problem with culture. Our culture values work at the expense of everything else, primarily because you gain materially from it. It’s sad because parents don’t get to spend time with their families as a result. And now, many mothers HAVE to work, at least part time. It’s not a choice, and not just for the very poor. It really does depend on where you live.

That’s why I never understood why, instead of having one parent work and one in home (unless it works for the family), that the system makes it so parents, should they choose, have equal time to work and be at home. Kids need BOTH parents, not just Mom or Dad. I mean, they do that in Europe, taxes may be higher but still…Sometimes I feel that Europe has more pro-family policies than the US does in some respects.

And yes, many of us want to work at a max of forty hours a week but for the careers we want, it’s not possible. We also want to make a living off of something we enjoy doing. I’ve done retail, I’m a waitress now, they’re not my favorite things in the world. No, they’re to help put me through school and hopefully send me to Italy next year. The career I want has to deal with foreign relations, which will take up a lot of my time. Yet I WANT to do it, because it’s everything I’ve wanted to do. I just would hope that I wouldn’t be a slave to my job, that I’d be able to have friends and just time to myself and for God.

 

[Oscarthecat]

That has nothing to do with the point at hand. It’s not a question of earning a wage based on hours worked - it’s about allowing the employee to decide how many hours they wish to work (and not be penalized for it).

Some of your comments don’t seem to take into account the mutually dependent nature of the employer/employee relationship.

Have you given much thought to the rights of employers?

Do you feel that employees have any moral obligations to their employers?

What do you mean by “penalized?”

Is it fair for an employer to reward workers for being more productive?

Should business owners have a right to decide whether they want to hire full time staff or part time staff?

Do employers have the right to terminate unproductive employees?

Do you think that businesses are adversely affected by unproductive employees?

Do employers have a right to expect a minimum amount of productivity from employees?

 

[wabrams]

It just seems that more and more, employers are demanding more of their employees. Being on call at all hours, expected overtime, etc. They don’t seem to care about anything else but the bottom line.

It seems that there should be an option for workers to work from a home office a limited number of hours a day (say 4-5). And, this option should be available to professional jobs, not just minimum wage flipping burgers (which you can’t usually do from home anyways).

Some of us don’t care about pulling down 6 figures. Some of us feel that the best work environment is the home. Some of us would like to spend time in other productive pursuits (such as volunteering, or gardening, or taking care of a loved one). Some of us feel that corporate America just doesn’t care and is becoming like the robber barons of old (‘do as I say or I’ll ruin you’ type mentality).

Go start your own company then. If not, don’t gripe if you accept a company’s employment terms.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Have you given much thought to the rights of employers?

Not as much as to the rights of workers - who are often at the short end of the stick. Employers are usually the ones though that go beyond and abuse any rights they have been given. A prime example is to expect the employee to be at their beck and call 24/7 (even when not ‘on the clock’).

Do you feel that employees have any moral obligations to their employers?

Yes. They have an obligation to do the work for which they are hired to do. They have an obligation not to steal from their employer.

What do you mean by “penalized?”

Penalized as in - ‘we don’t need you here anymore’ - or ‘how about a nice fat pay cut’.

Is it fair for an employer to reward workers for being more productive?

Usually, yes. But, this is very easily subject to abuse - as in subjectively defining productive and stripping others of pay and benefits.

Should business owners have a right to decide whether they want to hire full time staff or part time staff?

Generally, yes.

Do employers have the right to terminate unproductive employees?

It depends on how you define ‘unproductive’. If you mean that the employee is sleeping on the job, then yes. If you mean that the employee declines to work overtime, then no.

Do you think that businesses are adversely affected by unproductive employees?

Again, depends on how you define ‘unproductive’. In the case of the employee who sleeps on the job, then yes. In the case of the employee who doesn’t want to put in the extra hours, the business is only adversely affected by the blunders of management (i.e., understaffing, overbooking).

Do employers have a right to expect a minimum amount of productivity from employees?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Go start your own company then. If not, don’t gripe if you accept a company’s employment terms.

You have missed my entire point.

 

[cynic]

You have missed my entire point.

Ah no JMJ, you’re missing the point - if you don’t like it, go and start selling apples out of the back of a van. Become self-employed.

Or maybe you could buy land with some non-existent cash, grow your own vegetables and live “The Good Life”

 

[Julianna]

JMJ…
If the condition of employment (when first started) was to be on call 24/7 and the job was accepted…that is what you bought into. However, if your position description did not have that written in…turn off your phone after 5 PM and on the weekends. We have caller ID now…just don’t answer the phone. When the employer pays your phone bill, then you answer.

Read your position description closely and keep a copy for yourself. If there are any addendums or add ons as years go by request a copy and decide whether or not your want to buy into it. If you don’t sign any memo coming from HR or the employer…you’re not obligated. You can say you didn’t get the memo and you didn’t sign it. They in turn will ask you to sign as of today…that is when you have the option to bow out.

White collar is usually salary and it is “expected” that you would work overtime and pitch in extra hours to get the project done. This is something you and your employer have to agree on at the outset.

There are many right to hire states and you could be replaced if the color of your shirt is the least favorite of the boss. IOW they don’t need a reason.

Blue collar different matter. If it’s union, and it’s overtime you are getting paid, time and half, period. Double time for holidays and Sundays in some cases. My husband is union steward and delagate. Your employer cannot make you work outside your position description unless you volunteer to do it or if you decline and management forces…you get your steward for a meeting. Remember…the Labor Movement…the folks who brought you the weekend.

If you want to work part time and make good money, sadly there isn’t much out there.

It seems you are not happy where you are. Have you discussed this with your employer or HR representative? Some companies will keep folks on a part time salary…but remember it’s part time pay. If you can work a flex schedule and your employer agrees it’s win-win. If not, be pro-active and see employment that meets your financial needs as well as your creative needs.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Not as much as to the rights of workers - who are often at the short end of the stick. Employers are usually the ones though that go beyond and abuse any rights they have been given. A prime example is to expect the employee to be at their beck and call 24/7 (even when not ‘on the clock’).

Short end of the stick?
It appears that you think that being a business owner is all reward and no risk.

A business owner is always on call- they are never “off the clock.”
When a business loses money, the employer doesn’t get paid- but they have a legal obligation to pay you for your work, even if you are the reason they are losing money.
If you make a mistake on the job, if you end up hurting someone- they share your liability or might even be totally liable, depending on the job, even if you were completely at fault.

Being the boss isn’t all coctails and caviar- for most of us it isn’t even franks and beans. We take on significant risk, and aren’t guaranteed any kind of success.

Yes. They have an obligation to do the work for which they are hired to do. They have an obligation not to steal from their employer.

Well, that settles it- if you agreed to work a certain number of hours for a specific wage, then you are obligated to do that. If you want to renegotiate for more money or fewer hours, then you can, but your boss is not obligated to accept new terms any more than you are.

Penalized as in - ‘we don’t need you here anymore’ - or ‘how about a nice fat pay cut’.

That isn’t a penalty- that’s just basic accounting. If you work less than you agreed, then why should they have to pay you the same amount as you were earning when you were working more?

If you are salaried and over time you can do in 20 hours what you used to do in 40 hours, e.g. you have become more efficient, then you can try to renegotiate for terms that reflect this. This happens all the time- it is called a “raise.”

If you think you are doing more work in less time, and can’t get a raise, then you should either renegotiate with your boss, or get a new job. Don’t hate your boss for this- they provided the opportunity which enabled you to develope the skills to qualify for a better job in the first place.

Is it fair for an employer to reward workers for being more productive?

Usually, yes. But, this is very easily subject to abuse - as in subjectively defining productive and stripping others of pay and benefits.

You didn’t answer the question I asked- instead, it appears that you answered the question “Do productivity based rewards result in a loss of benefits and pay to unproductive employees?”

It is fair for people to be rewarded for hard work, just as it is fair that unproductive employees be penalized for poor or inefficient work. The most extreme penalty is to be fired.

Think about it. Say you hire two salesmen to sell 100 things each month. One sells 200 things, and the other sells 0 things. Isn’t it fair that you should fire the salesman who did no work, and pay double to the salesman who did twice the amount of work? After all, to do anything else is to reward the bad employee, and punish the good employee.

What happens to a company when you reward failure?

(Question: Should businesses have a right to decide whether they hire full time or part time staff)
Generally, yes.

Your comments from previous posts seem to imply that this right belongs to employees, not to employers…

for example, you said “It’s not a question of earning a wage based on hours worked - it’s about allowing the employee to decide how many hours they wish to work (and not be penalized for it).”

So which is it?

Again, depends on how you define ‘unproductive’. In the case of the employee who sleeps on the job, then yes.

Say you hired 10 people to do the same task, but 1 of them can’t complete that task without working overtime- that person is inefficient.

If that person refuses to work overtime to complete the task they were hired for, then they are unproductive.

In the case of the employee who doesn’t want to put in the extra hours, the business is only adversely affected by the blunders of management (i.e., understaffing, overbooking).

There are times in every business when a 40 hour work week is not sufficient to keep the doors open - this can be due to bad management, bad employees, a bad economy, or just bad luck.

If your boss needs you to work harder to help get the company out of a bad slump, and you refuse, then you are at least partially to blame when that company fails and all of its employees lose their jobs.

Just so that I’m not shooting down everything you say, I do agree that some companies attempt to create a culture of “panic” because they think that employees work harder when they think the sky is falling- but that kind of culture is self-destructive, as people can only panic for so long before going numb, hating their job, and wishing the company would fail.

If you work for a company like this, you should quit- in fact, everyone there should quit bcause sometimes that’s the only way bad employers can learn to be better employers.

 

[Viki63]

The only readily available jobs that offer such hours are usually in retail or food service that offer very low pay .

Actually, there are quite a few jobs in the medical field that allow you to work from home as many hours as you want: medical transcriptionist, for example, which doesn’t necesarily even need a nursing degree, just some training. Telenurses or triage nurses can work from home. There’s a great and increasing demand for such workers.

 

[cynic]

Say you hired 10 people to do the same task, but 1 of them can’t complete that task without working overtime- that person is inefficient.

If that person refuses to work overtime to complete the task they were hired for, then they are unproductive.

You’re assuming that the nature of the work is finite, at least from day to day. In many jobs the work is neverending, there is always more work to do, for example in manufacturing. So employers have the motivation to push an employee to work longer and longer hours, regardless of how efficient they are.

Just so that I’m not shooting down everything you say, I do agree that some companies attempt to create a culture of “panic” because they think that employees work harder when they think the sky is falling- but that kind of culture is self-destructive, as people can only panic for so long before going numb, hating their job, and wishing the company would fail.

If you work for a company like this, you should quit- in fact, everyone there should quit bcause sometimes that’s the only way bad employers can learn to be better employers.

You’ve identified one tactic, make staff think that the business is always “on the brink” and they’ll lose their job unless they work overtime, week after week. It’s common in workplaces, and how much more common do you think it will be once overtime rates are gone? (yes that again)

 

[Oscarthecat]

You’re assuming that the nature of the work is finite, at least from day to day. In many jobs the work is neverending, there is always more work to do, for example in manufacturing. So employers have the motivation to push an employee to work longer and longer hours, regardless of how efficient they are.

Hmm, I believe that what you are referring to is called “growth.” Companies grow when they are successful…most people take this as a sign that their jobs are secure.
I never really thought of job security as an imposition, but to each their own, I guess.

You’ve identified one tactic, make staff think that the business is always “on the brink” and they’ll lose their job unless they work overtime, week after week. It’s common in workplaces, and how much more common do you think it will be once overtime rates are gone? (yes that again)

Some companies handle growth quite well by anticipating it, planning for it, and staffing appropriately so as not to burn out their employees by constantly expecting more and more out of them.

Other companies handle growth poorly by delaying adjustments to changing needs as long as possible in order to reduce costs. These companies are generally marked by numerous other bad management decisions.

So, as crazy as this sounds, my advice is still that, whenever possible, people should choose NOT to work at companies that are managed poorly.

As far as your “minimum wage” nonsense goes…again, the fact that people are paid above the minimum wage RIGHT NOW means that everything you have said about the minimum wage is wrong.

 

[cynic]

Hmm, I believe that what you are referring to is called “growth.” Companies grow when they are successful…most people take this as a sign that their jobs are secure.
I never really thought of job security as an imposition, but to each their own, I guess.
.

I’m not sure I understand you. On one hand you’re suggesting the employees should work longer and longer hours to secure their positions. On the other, you say the imposition of long hours is the result of poor management, and staff should vote with their feet. Which is it?

It seems like you are unable concede a point, and would rather throw back accusations (employees unwilling to work into the night, every day of the week, are lazy, and don’t care about the company that employs them)

Some companies handle growth quite well by anticipating it, planning for it, and staffing appropriately so as not to burn out their employees by constantly expecting more and more out of them.

Other companies handle growth poorly by delaying adjustments to changing needs as long as possible in order to reduce costs. These companies are generally marked by numerous other bad management decisions.

So, as crazy as this sounds, my advice is still that, whenever possible, people should choose NOT to work at companies that are managed poorly.

As far as your “minimum wage” nonsense goes…again, the fact that people are paid above the minimum wage RIGHT NOW means that everything you have said about the minimum wage is wrong.

Yeah until every manufacturing firm or retail chain does the same. Which will be easy to do once overtime rates are gone. Why don’t you tell that to people working in sweat shops in Malaysia, because the low pay options here would be similiar to there it were to employer associations, right-wing think tanks and various other libertarian organizations out there, just itching to get rid of every labour law there is.

Oh and I think you have the minimum wage and overtime mixed up. They are different pieces of legislation that refer to different things.

As for my minimum wage nonsense - the fact that it is so low in the U.S means most semi-skilled get paid above it, however it’s a bit different to say it’s existence is of no consequence. Perhaps it acts as a kind of bottom rung on which employers scale pay rates for positions that involve increasing complexity/responsibility. Or perhaps most employers don’t want to be seen as paying too close to the absolute minimum. Or perhaps the market functions perfectly, and the minimum truly is irrelevant. Who knows. Are you an economist? Do you have some experience that grants you the right to say people should work for less, that the perceived poverty line is set too high in the west? Or does anti-government fundametalism just appeal on some emotional level.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I’m not sure I understand you. On one hand you’re suggesting the employees should work longer and longer hours to secure their positions. On the other, you say the imposition of long hours is the result of poor management, and staff should vote with their feet. Which is it?

All of the above. These things are not contradictory.
Employers are going to prefer those employees who give them the greatest value for the wage they are paid, whether that is long hours, hard work, or both. Employers who attempt to squeeze more out of their employees than the employees want or can give are poor managers. Employers who can’t run a business without burning out their employees are also bad managers. At the same time, employees who can’t understand that they may be called upon to work harder for the good of the company are bad employees because they lack even a basic understanding of the relationships between their workload, business growth, efficiency, productivity, earnings etc.

In all cases, people who are unhappy with changes in the cost:benefit ratio of their job should try to join with other employees to negotiate with their employers, or find another way to pay their bills.

It seems like you are unable concede a point, and would rather throw back accusations (employees unwilling to work into the night, every day of the week, are lazy, and don’t care about the company that employs them)

Sounds like a twisted version of the comment I just made…

Yeah until every manufacturing firm or retail chain does the same. Which will be easy to do once overtime rates are gone. Why don’t you tell that to people working in sweat shops in Malaysia, because the low pay options here would be similiar to there it were to employer associations, right-wing think tanks and various other libertarian organizations out there, just itching to get rid of every labour law there is.

Unscrupulous employers abound throughout the world. Movies have been made about brave people who stood up to the injustices of sweatshops, poor working conditions, etc. We aren’t better off in the US because of our laws, we are better off because of the people who lived here before we did what many people in third world countries are still working on- they stood up for themselves, stopped being victims, and took control of their own futures.

Yes, I know it is hard for people to stand up for themselves. That doesn’t change the fact that they have to do it.

Oh and I think you have the minimum wage and overtime mixed up. They are different pieces of legislation that refer to different things.

As for my minimum wage nonsense - the fact that it is so low in the U.S means most semi-skilled get paid above it, however it’s a bit different to say it’s existence is of no consequence. Perhaps it acts as a kind of bottom rung on which employers scale pay rates for positions that involve increasing complexity/responsibility. Or perhaps most employers don’t want to be seen as paying too close to the absolute minimum. Or perhaps the market functions perfectly, and the minimum truly is irrelevant. Who knows.

It’s all nonsense- the application may be different, but the principle is the same. That is, you believe the government protects the weak from the strong by placing restrictions and minimum compliance rules, while I believe that the government’s primary objective in setting any rule is to protect itself from us convincing us that it is protecting us from each other.

Wage laws are an extremely effective way to maintain the illusion of class tension because they do just as much to keep wages down as they do to keep wages up. That is, a minimum wage offers an employer an arbitrary wage that quickly becomes that non-negotiable standard across all entry level and unskilled labor positions regardless of regional economic factors. First, the very presence of a wage law imply that indidivuals are not able to negotiate fair wages with one another. Second, a legislated wage sets a point of reference for the scaling of all wages- it is just as effective at keeping wages from rising faster than the economy can manage as it is at keeping wages from dropping lower than sustainable levels.

Are you an economist? Do you have some experience that grants you the right to say people should work for less, that the perceived poverty line is set too high in the west? Or does anti-government fundametalism just appeal on some emotional level.

Personal attacks and other assorted logical fallacies such as these aren’t productive. Maybe you should recuse yourself from further discussion until you can defend your positions on their own merit.

 

[cynic]

All of the above. These things are not contradictory.
Employers are going to prefer those employees who give them the greatest value for the wage they are paid, whether that is long hours, hard work, or both. Employers who attempt to squeeze more out of their employees than the employees want or can give are poor managers. Employers who can’t run a business without burning out their employees are also bad managers.
.

This doesn’t begin to answer my statement ; that employers in certain industries are motivated to push up hours/workload regardless of current productivity, or the effects on their workers. When this becomes standard across an industry, workers within it have nowhere to go except into unskilled labour somewhere els, and no recourse except to unionnize…

At the same time, employees who can’t understand that they may be called upon to work harder for the good of the company are bad employees because they lack even a basic understanding of the relationships between their workload, business growth, efficiency, productivity, earnings etc.
.

ahh and they are to expect purely objective information from management on these things, right…

In all cases, people who are unhappy with changes in the cost:benefit ratio of their job should try to join with other employees to negotiate with their employers, or find another way to pay their bills.
.

yes, anything that doesn’t involve some minor intervention from government.

Unscrupulous employers abound throughout the world. Movies have been made about brave people who stood up to the injustices of sweatshops, poor working conditions, etc. We aren’t better off in the US because of our laws, we are better off because of the people who lived here before we did what many people in third world countries are still working on,
.

Those laws are the result of the labour movement, and they’ve been around for 70 or so years, during which standards of living rose the most. To remove them is to deny the hard work of labour unions, and a direct slap in the face for those workers who are unable to belong to one, ie people employed in small businesses.

It’s strange that you support the concept of unions anyway, mainly because it’s a tacit recognition that the majority of employers will not act in accordance with “Catholic Social Teaching”, upon which employees are idealy to rely,…but then not… it doesn’t make sense.

Wage laws are an extremely effective way to maintain the illusion of class tension because they do just as much to keep wages down as they do to keep wages up. That is, a minimum wage offers an employer an arbitrary wage that quickly becomes that non-negotiable standard across all entry level and unskilled labor positions regardless of regional economic factors.
.

Wages/conditions that unions demand are likely to be as arbitrary as any laws, and pass on a cost to business, the consumer, and other employees.

First, the very presence of a wage law imply that indidivuals are not able to negotiate fair wages with one another. Second, a legislated wage sets a point of reference for the scaling of all wages- it is just as effective at keeping wages from rising faster than the economy can manage as it is at keeping wages from dropping lower than sustainable levels.
.

Why would a low minumum wage make semi-skilled employees unwilling to negotiate for pay and conditions beyond it? Your suggesting that the minimum wage is paid for in some degree by other employees in better positions, but so what.

Who would argue with minimum wage unless the intention is to pay below it, and how do people paid below it benefit from the rising wages of, presumably, other people?

Personal attacks and other assorted logical fallacies such as these aren’t productive. Maybe you should recuse yourself from further discussion until you can defend your positions on their own merit.

I call it as I see it, and you seem fanatically anti-government, for the sake of it.

Further evidence being in another thread you suggest that minimum standards of animal welfare, with regard to factory farming, should be determined solely by how much consumers are willing to pay (is an animal deserving of a minimal level of treatment or not?)

Perhaps we should apply similiar ideas to the abortion issue, ie. that people should have the right to act immoraly, in order the give the correct, responsible choice meaning.

When it comes to somebodies right to live, or somebodies ability to pay for food, I just can’t agree.

 

[Oscarthecat]

This doesn’t begin to answer my statement ; that employers in certain industries are motivated to push up hours/workload regardless of current productivity, or the effects on their workers. When this becomes standard across an industry, workers within it have nowhere to go except into unskilled labour somewhere els, and no recourse except to unionnize…

Then they should unionize-

Those laws are the result of the labour movement, and they’ve been around for 70 or so years, during which standards of living rose the most. To remove them is to deny the hard work of labour unions, and a direct slap in the face for those workers who are unable to belong to one, ie people employed in small businesses.

Let’s see…

If those laws were designed to protect people-

but those laws were the result of people standing up to protect themselves in the first place-

and now, a generation or two later, people like you believe they need laws to protect them because they don’t believe they can protect themselves-

Then what function do the laws serve, exactly?

Seems to me that they just calmed the activists down, and lulled workers back into a sense of powerlessness.

It’s strange that you support the concept of unions anyway, mainly because it’s a tacit recognition that the majority of employers will not act in accordance with “Catholic Social Teaching”, upon which employees are idealy to rely,…but then not… it doesn’t make sense.

Strange that you think that bureaucrats are somehow more trustworthy than business owners.

Power corrupts- it doesn’t matter if your power comes from your position in a company or your position in government.

People have a right to work cooperatively with one another to protect themselves from corrupt powers- business, government, or otherwise.

Wages/conditions that unions demand are likely to be as arbitrary as any laws, and pass on a cost to business, the consumer, and other employees.

No, subsidiarity is not arbitrary.

Wouldn’t you agree that part of negotiating a fair wage with your boss includes some understanding of the economic and social conditions where you live.

But if you lived in NYC, would it seem arbitrary for the federal government to base your minimum wage on the average needs for workers living throughout the country? Let me explain: $14 per hour may provide the same quality of life in NYC as $6 an hour provides in a small town in a rural area with a much lower cost of living. So, the Feds decide that the “minimum wage” should be the average between the two, which is $10 per hour. Thanks to the government, your boss feels morally justified paying you about 70% of what you need to survive because the government told him it was OK.

Oh, and the guy working in the small town? He lost his job and is now dependent on government support. You see, his boss was able to afford two employees at that community’s fair wage of $6 per hour, but couldn’t afford to pay more than that, and so was forced to fire one employee in order to pay the other at the federally mandated wage. Since there were no jobs in his town, he had to move to the big city, where he can find lots of jobs that pay $10 per hour, but can’t afford to get an apartment or feed himself, so now he’s homeless. I should add, by the way, that the other employee back in the small town now hates his boss because he has to do twice the amount of work now that his coworker is gone.

Are you starting to see why government intervention, especially at the federal level, might seem arbitrary?

Why would a low minumum wage make semi-skilled employees unwilling to negotiate for pay and conditions beyond it? Your suggesting that the minimum wage is paid for in some degree by other employees in better positions, but so what.

No I’m not, I’m saying, not suggesting, that the minimum wage sets an artificial standard from which entry level wages are negotiate, which effectively draws down the the negotiating potential for those positions.

Who would argue with minimum wage unless the intention is to pay below it, and how do people paid below it benefit from the rising wages of, presumably, other people?

You’re off the map here. No idea what you’re talking about.
It may be called a “minimum wage,” but in reality it operates as an normative wage for all entry level and unskilled labor positions which does not reflect the actual value of the actual work done by the individual worker.

Further evidence being in another thread you suggest that minimum standards of animal welfare, with regard to factory farming, should be determined solely by how much consumers are willing to pay (is an animal deserving of a minimal level of treatment or not?)

No, I stated that businesses would be likely to meet and exceed existing standards if it meant gaining market share. This is the reason that many companies are beginning to offer more “hormone free” and “antiobiotic free” products.

Perhaps we should apply similiar ideas to the abortion issue, ie. that people should have the right to act immoraly, in order the give the correct, responsible choice meaning.

I never said people have the right to act immorally. What I have said that individuals have a responsibility to protect their rights, and should not expect or want the government to do it for them.

When it comes to somebodies right to live, or somebodies ability to pay for food, I just can’t agree.

That’s fine- we don’t have to agree.

Where we differ is that I can respect the fact that we disagree without trying to use the government to force you to live according to my values.

 

[cynic]

If those laws were designed to protect people-

but those laws were the result of people standing up to protect themselves in the first place-

and now, a generation or two later, people like you believe they need laws to protect them because they don’t believe they can protect themselves-

Then what function do the laws serve, exactly?

Seems to me that they just calmed the activists down, and lulled workers back into a sense of powerlessness.
.

Right, I’m powerless because my boss doesn’t have the right to pay me less than I can live on.

Strange that you think that bureaucrats are somehow more trustworthy than business owners.
.

What’s trustworthiness got to do with it, and why would I trust my boss to care? It’s a law, it requires compliance. Compliance (where I live) means I get enough to pay rent on a modest one bedroom flat and can afford groceries. I should trust my employer and accept the very real possibility that I might not be able to afford these things?

No, subsidiarity is not arbitrary.

Wouldn’t you agree that part of negotiating a fair wage with your boss includes some understanding of the economic and social conditions where you live.

But if you lived in NYC, would it seem arbitrary for the federal government to base your minimum wage on the average needs for workers living throughout the country? Let me explain: $14 per hour may provide the same quality of life in NYC as $6 an hour provides in a small town in a rural area with a much lower cost of living. So, the Feds decide that the “minimum wage” should be the average between the two, which is $10 per hour. Thanks to the government, your boss feels morally justified paying you about 70% of what you need to survive because the government told him it was OK.
.

Why would an employer feel obliged to pay only what he had to because the minimum is below the cost of living? He has a brain doesn’t he? He can get an idea of what the real cost of living in the area is, right? If he cared he would simply opt to pay more, or the employee would negotiate for more. If however he doesn’t care, the minimum is the only thing protecting wages from being even lower. He might lose staff if he tries to, in which case it is irrelevant. Either way, there’s no reason to remove it.

Oh, and the guy working in the small town? He lost his job and is now dependent on government support. You see, his boss was able to afford two employees at that community’s fair wage of $6 per hour, but couldn’t afford to pay more than that, and so was forced to fire one employee in order to pay the other at the federally mandated wage. Since there were no jobs in his town, he had to move to the big city, where he can find lots of jobs that pay $10 per hour, but can’t afford to get an apartment or feed himself, so now he’s homeless. I should add, by the way, that the other employee back in the small town now hates his boss because he has to do twice the amount of work now that his coworker is gone.
.

How kind of profitable business can only afford to employ staff at $6 an hour? Ok assuming that there might be real world examples of this, that means that the minimum wage should be higher in New York, and lower in the Mid-West, right?

No I’m not, I’m saying, not suggesting, that the minimum wage sets an artificial standard from which entry level wages are negotiate, which effectively draws down the the negotiating potential for those positions.
.

I don’t see how the possibility of paying people less makes it easier for staff to negotiate getting paid more.

You’re off the map here. No idea what you’re talking about.
It may be called a “minimum wage,” but in reality it operates as an normative wage for all entry level and unskilled labor positions which does not reflect the actual value of the actual work done by the individual worker.
.

Ok I get you here…

But people are not neccessarily paid by the value of their work, Their pay is determined mainly by the rules of supply and demand, which means productive (hard working) individuals can still earn very little because their labour can be ‘bought’ very easily in the market. Employers could potentially afford to pay more, but won’t do so simply because they’re not forced to.

No, I stated that businesses would be likely to meet and exceed existing standards if it meant gaining market share. This is the reason that many companies are beginning to offer more “hormone free” and “antiobiotic free” products.
.

So you’ll have two types of consumers (and suppliers). Those who care about animal welfare and are prepared to pay the difference, and those who aren’t. For animals raised to provide the cheapest product possible - for the second group - the only thing that will increase their quality of life are laws that require change.

Where we differ is that I can respect the fact that we disagree without trying to use the government to force you to live according to my values.

And yet I think there are probably many examples where you would like to use the government to force me to live by your values. Conservatives only place value on economic freedom, not personal/moral freedom. I’m not a fan of too much moral freedom either, but I seems like hypocrisy.