The flaw in 'selling your labour.'

[Rau]

…How do we incorporate this principle into contemporary society where unscrupulous employers demand self and soul?

In my experience, employers are not as a whole any more unscrupulous than anyone else. It is just that it is they, moreso than others, who are the ones likely to offend you (as an employee), so they likely attract more attention.

Offer in return for recompense - it has a certain appeal. The offer is clear - labour. What you suggest is a contract? Now we need to define ‘recompense.’ I would start with the recompense is the value of the labour to the receiver of that labour?

And who is going to define that? Who is going to determine (with the wisdom of Solomon) the proper distribution of value across all the contributors to production? And it may change continually. I know of no economic system able to price labour (and the other factors of production) better than a market (albeit a regulated one, to smooth at least some of the rough edges). But as I said earlier, an area worthy of on-going research.

‘To serve is a privilege.’ :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:

Sorry Rau can’t run with that. the autonomous individual ‘serves’ no one. From my perspective that smacks a bit of benevolent master/pampered slave. No matter how benevolent the master is the ‘server’ remains subservient. The one being served is the one who should feel privileged - not the server.

Mutual respect is not a novel idea, nor is it excluded by the giving of service. I am surprised that you cringe at the notion of ‘service’, as though it reflects some indignity to be suffered, and to be resented.

 

[minkymurph]

In my experience, employers are not as a whole any more unscrupulous than anyone else. It is just that it is they, moreso than others, who are the ones likely to offend you (as an employee), so they likely attract more attention.

First apologies - been off radar for a while.

They are more likely to offend employees due to the degree of control they have over their lives. When what an individual does has little impact on your life, there is less resentment. The greater the negative, and I emphasize negative in acknowledgment of the fact not all employers impact negatively on the lives of employees, the greater the resentment.

And who is going to define that? Who is going to determine (with the wisdom of Solomon) the proper distribution of value across all the contributors to production? And it may change continually. I know of no economic system able to price labour (and the other factors of production) better than a market (albeit a regulated one, to smooth at least some of the rough edges). But as I said earlier, an area worthy of on-going research…

In the absence of definitions a model will certainly be flawed, but in reality they are defined. They are defined by; contract, degree of expertise and specialist knowledge, purchasing power, many factors.

It certainly is an area worthy of ongoing research. If not - we must claim we have perfect model and only the extremely imprudent would claim that.

I agree the market should be regulated.

Mutual respect is not a novel idea, nor is it excluded by the giving of service. I am surprised that you cringe at the notion of ‘service’, as though it reflects some indignity to be suffered, and to be resented.

It’s not the idea of providing a service I cringe at. Rather - the idea of being a servant.

Let’s be honest, some are looked down on purely as a consequence of the particular ‘service’ they provide, and perceived as ‘servants’. This is the indignity.

The biggest issue I have today is zero contracts. If I am free to sell my labour, then I should be free to sell it to anyone. A zero contract should work both ways. If an employer does not guarantee any hours the employee should not be expected to always be available. It cannot be deemed just to expect to hold the monopoly on an individuals labour when no work is guaranteed, and simultaneously demand that individual works for no one else. Is that no contrary to the principle of selling your labour to meet market demands?

 

[b_ulmen]

No-one gains economic power just for being a warm body.
ICXC NIKA

you don’t have much experience with federal govt workers, eh?

 

[davidv]

First apologies - been off radar for a while.

They are more likely to offend employees due to the degree of control they have over their lives. When what an individual does has little impact on your life, there is less resentment. The greater the negative, and I emphasize negative in acknowledgment of the fact not all employers impact negatively on the lives of employees, the greater the resentment.

In the absence of definitions a model will certainly be flawed, but in reality they are defined. They are defined by; contract, degree of expertise and specialist knowledge, purchasing power, many factors.

It certainly is an area worthy of ongoing research. If not - we must claim we have perfect model and only the extremely imprudent would claim that.

I agree the market should be regulated.

It’s not the idea of providing a service I cringe at. Rather - the idea of being a servant.

Let’s be honest, some are looked down on purely as a consequence of the particular ‘service’ they provide, and perceived as ‘servants’. This is the indignity.

The biggest issue I have today is zero contracts. If I am free to sell my labour, then I should be free to sell it to anyone. A zero contract should work both ways. If an employer does not guarantee any hours the employee should not be expected to always be available. It cannot be deemed just to expect to hold the monopoly on an individuals labour when no work is guaranteed, and simultaneously demand that individual works for no one else. Is that no contrary to the principle of selling your labour to meet market demands?

Can you be more specific as what kind of service is cringe worthy. Based an Scripture some service is praiseworthy.

[25] But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.
[26] It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant,
[27] and whoever would be first among you must be your slave;
[28] even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

 

[minkymurph]

Can you be more specific as what kind of service is cringe worthy. Based an Scripture some service is praiseworthy.

In my personal view none, but surely you are not arguing contemporary society deems every service equally valuable?

On the point of Scripture, I don’t think contemporary society cares much what Scripture says. It can be argued it should, but the fact remains it does not which is why we need - among other things - a penal code.

 

[Rau]

You remarked:
"minkymurph:

…I would start with the recompense is the value of the labour to the receiver of that labour

In the absence of definitions a model will certainly be flawed, but in reality they [the distribution of value across the factors of production] are defined. They are defined by; contract, degree of expertise and specialist knowledge, purchasing power, many factors.

Very many factors! Value is more complex than might appear. It is also a function of competition and of alternatives. A robot may do welding at $8 per hour and a man at $30 per hour. Some manufacturers will adopt robots and the price of their finished products in the market will drop, placing all manufacturers under pressure. That will cause the value of labour for welding to drop.

If you are expecting that adherence to the definition of value you gave will ensure wages remain at levels satisfactory to the worker, that is not the case.

 

[minkymurph]

You remarked:

Very many factors! Value is more complex than might appear. It is also a function of competition and of alternatives. A robot may do welding at $8 per hour and a man at $30 per hour. Some manufacturers will adopt robots and the price of their finished products in the market will drop, placing all manufacturers under pressure. That will cause the value of labour for welding to drop.

If you are expecting that adherence to the definition of value you gave will ensure wages remain at levels satisfactory to the worker, that is not the case.

I’m not advocating rigid adherence to definition. Nor am I advocating wages remain at levels satisfactory to the worker.

What I am saying is if we advocate ‘selling labour’ then we must define ‘selling’ within that context and also labour. Without definitions we cannot determine if labour can in fact be sold. If it can be sold, then it has a price.

Selling ‘time’ has been mentioned but I don’t think time is something you can sell. If all you are selling is your time then your entitled to just be there and not actually do anything.
Of course it that is what your are being paid for then there is no issue.

 

[minkymurph]

I’m not advocating rigid adherence to definition. Nor am I advocating wages remain at levels satisfactory to the worker.

What I am saying is if we advocate ‘selling labour’ then we must define ‘selling’ within that context and also labour. Without definitions we cannot determine if labour can in fact be sold. If it can be sold, then it has a price.

Selling ‘time’ has been mentioned but I don’t think time is something you can sell. If all you are selling is your time then your entitled to just be there and not actually do anything.
Of course it that is what your are being paid for then there is no issue.

If something is sold then the buyer becomes the owner. You cannot own labour and the individual who provides that labour should they be treated as if they are owned due to the fact they are being paid for their labour. Now you can’t say there are no employers out there who treat their employees as if they own them?

You can however hire labour which is synonymous with renting, This would negate notions of ownership and the one renting in terms of labour is the agenda setter.

 

[minkymurph]

If something is sold then the buyer becomes the owner. You cannot own labour and the individual who provides that labour should they be treated as if they are owned due to the fact they are being paid for their labour. Now you can’t say there are no employers out there who treat their employees as if they own them?

You can however hire labour which is synonymous with renting, This would negate notions of ownership and the one renting in terms of labour is the agenda setter.

Also - in many circumstances it is not just the labour itself the employer wants, but he actual individual who provides it.

 

[Rau]

If something is sold then the buyer becomes the owner. You cannot own labour and the individual who provides that labour should they be treated as if they are owned due to the fact they are being paid for their labour. Now you can’t say there are no employers out there who treat their employees as if they own them?

You can however hire labour which is synonymous with renting, This would negate notions of ownership and the one renting in terms of labour is the agenda setter.

Re-Reading your OP - it seems you (or I) have lost the plot.

 

[minkymurph]

Re-Reading your OP - it seems you (or I) have lost the plot.

I’m pretty certain I haven’t lost the plot.

In my OP I wrote the word sell in quotation marks. This was to indicate labour is not a commodity cannot be sold as a commodity. I did mention that.

Is it not the case that if you sell something you cease to be the owner of that thing, and the buyer becomes the owner? Would you disagree with this statement?

 

[davidv]

In my personal view none, but surely you are not arguing contemporary society deems every service equally valuable?

On the point of Scripture, I don’t think contemporary society cares much what Scripture says. It can be argued it should, but the fact remains it does not which is why we need - among other things - a penal code.

This is a Catholic site, not contemporary society. What society does, or not do, is not very relevant to your OP. It would appear that your cringe is based more on society than on Scripture.

 

[GEddie]

I’m pretty certain I haven’t lost the plot.

In my OP I wrote the word sell in quotation marks. This was to indicate labour is not a commodity cannot be sold as a commodity. I did mention that.

Is it not the case that if you sell something you cease to be the owner of that thing, and the buyer becomes the owner? Would you disagree with this statement?

Labor is different in that regard. Obviously the “purchaser” does not own your hands, mind, etc. What would be owned is the output of these faculties in saving him time, or doing what he can’t, etc.

But for the purpose of economic equation-mongering, labor must be priced as a commodity.

ICXC NIKA

 

[jmcrae]

The biggest issue I have today is zero contracts. If I am free to sell my labour, then I should be free to sell it to anyone. A zero contract should work both ways. If an employer does not guarantee any hours the employee should not be expected to always be available. It cannot be deemed just to expect to hold the monopoly on an individuals labour when no work is guaranteed, and simultaneously demand that individual works for no one else. Is that no contrary to the principle of selling your labour to meet market demands?

No one can expect that; it is not at all reasonable.

When negotiating a contract, you need to say what your minimum hours per week will be, and what your maximum hours per week will be. You also have to talk about what your hours will be - for example, are you applying for the day shift, or the night shift? What time does your shift start and end each day? Which days of the week will you work? Under what circumstances might you leave early? Under what circumstances might you stay late? I think that if those questions don’t have solid answers, then you need to move on.

 

[minkymurph]

This is a Catholic site, not contemporary society. What society does, or not do, is not very relevant to your OP. It would appear that your cringe is based more on society than on Scripture.

It may be a Catholic site but to my knowledge not limited to discussions on Scripture or Scriptural evidence for anything said - and this is not the Scripture forum it is the Social Justice forum. What society does is very relevant to Social Justice.

 

[minkymurph]

Labor is different in that regard. Obviously the “purchaser” does not own your hands, mind, etc. What would be owned is the output of these faculties in saving him time, or doing what he can’t, etc.

But for the purpose of economic equation-mongering, labor must be priced as a commodity.

ICXC NIKA

I agree what is owned is the output - such as a builder owning the house his squad builds. Their ‘share’ in that ownership are the wages he pays.

I don’t agree it must be priced as a commodity. How can the work a surgeon performs be priced as a commodity? At the other end of the scale a nanny, or in fact a cleaner. Anne Whitcombe said the person she wanted to thank the most was her cleaner.

 

[minkymurph]

No one can expect that; it is not at all reasonable.

I absolutely agree, but zero contracts work very well for the employer. They only pay you when they need you, and if you work for anyone else they won’t employ you as they want you at their beck and call and only their beck and call. This seriously limits the bargaining power and earning capacity of employees.

I have a friend who works as a bar man on a zero contract. The establishment closed for three months for refurbishment and during that time he was not permitted to work for anyone else.

When negotiating a contract, you need to say what your minimum hours per week will be, and what your maximum hours per week will be. You also have to talk about what your hours will be - for example, are you applying for the day shift, or the night shift? What time does your shift start and end each day? Which days of the week will you work? Under what circumstances might you leave early? Under what circumstances might you stay late? I think that if those questions don’t have solid answers, then you need to move on.

I agree, but traditional notions of a bargained contract have gone, and they are now offered on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis. Your days and hours change each week making it incredibly difficult to organize your life.

I agree if their are no solid answers move on, but in the current economic climate choices are extremely limited in terms of moving on for a significant number of individuals. In the UK the government has now stepped in to eradicate zero contracts which serves as evidence that there are occasions when the government needs to step in and regulate the market.