The Labor Pains Megathread

[DGuller]

While I sympathise with your side, Raz and Jacob, I think you are moving the post somewhat here.

Sure, the economical coercion exists and this is why Tamas/Yi are wrong. But some of the examples you quote would constitute physical coercion and would be illegal.

While I do recognise a need to protect against some forms of economical coercion - this is not the same as physical coercion.

Where do company towns paying in scrip fall into this?  Somewhere in the middle, IMO.

[crazy canuck]

But ban on slavery is NOT a workplace regulation

Where would you draw the line between slavery and very shitty conditions?
The crocodiles in the swamps eating escapees is fine but shooting them isn't perhaps? The initial hiring process?

For starters, when you have enough of shitty WORK conditions, you quit. When you want to quit shitty SLAVERY conditions, you can't, because you are ENSLAVED.

What if the contract you signed precludes you from quitting?

Well, admittedly, in Tamas's favour, such contracts can only provide for a financial penalty for quitting. You cannot be effectively forced to work for someone against your will (I am not talking about stuff like conscription, of course).

If you have been following along a little more closely Tamas' contention is that market forces should dictate labour conditions not legal regulation.  The reason contracts of employment are not enforceable by way of specific performance is a public policy decision unrelated to the market.

[dps]

Also how aware a person must be the terms and conditions of a contract and how can they legally break the contract.

Isn't that more a matter of individual differences than it is of regulations?  Some people will sign anything you hand them, others won't sign anything without having a lawyer go over it with a fine-tooth comb.  And even among those who read a contract themselves, how much they understand it varies greatly.

And that's not even considering that most employees don't have a written contract.

[Ideologue]

My objection to what you and Yi have posted so far is not that you think 24-7 openings are okay. That's fine. It can be okay. It's that the only argument you have offered is "the free market is good" and "supply and demand will sort it out". It's the equivalent of a sophomoric Communist answering "collectivization" or "the will of the people" when asked to justify any given policy.

Nationalize game development.

[Tonitrus]

[Ideologue]

I liked Rush'n Attack.

[Ideologue]

Btw, Toni, is your avatar from They Live?

[Martinus]

Fair enough. Personally, I favour longer opening hours in Europe as well, though I do like the pace the closed-Sundays rule gives as well. It isn't a moral issue though, but a technocratic one of quality of life and efficiency.

I disagree. I have lived in places where Sunday trade was allowed and in those where it was not. I 100% prefer the places where it is allowed. I often work very long hours during the week and sometimes work on Saturdays as well, so it improves my quality of life a lot to be able to shop on Sundays (not to mention, in addition to shopping such regulations usually affect places like barbers, gyms etc., which I am usually only able to visit on weekends and a single day in the week would not be enough) and besides places where Sunday trade is not allowed often look like ghost towns on Sundays as well. Plus, for social engineering reasons, I'd much rather have people spend time in a shopping mall than in a church.

Not sure what's the "efficiency" argument that you mention, by the way. I'd imagine closing large malls and similar facilities for one day every 7 days (while obviously keeping it heated, illuminated etc.) is extremely inefficient. Likewise it must be very inefficient for places selling quickly perishable goods, such as fresh seafood.

[Tonitrus]

Btw, Toni, is your avatar from They Live?

One of the greatest bad movies of all time.

[Martinus]

I have been thinking about this debate in a broader sense and I think I have come to a conclusion that I am somewhere in the middle.

On one hand, I tend to agree with Yi and Tamas that one's situation in life - whether it is the fact that one has to work a night shift on Sunday at a mall; or that one is a single working class parent with three kids - is much more often than not a result of a choice - or, more specifically, a sequence of choices, most of them bad - that such person (or, more rarely, the closest family of such person) has made in his or her life (of course, sometimes an out-of-blue tragedy happens, but even then, when the consequences of such tragedy are truly devastating for a person's livelihood, this can very often be traced to a bad choice such person has made earlier - such as preferring to buy a flat screen tv instead of insurance, for example).

On the other hand, I also recognise that this should not be a reason to say that, because of this, a person should be let to his or her own devices because it is his or her "fault" - not least of all, because bad choices are often a result of inexperience/naivete, bad upbringing (for example, the parents' and educators' failure to install the mechanism of "delayed reward" in a person), peer pressure and similar factors which, while possible for a person to overcome, are not entirely within one's control.

But at the same time, we should avoid taking the position that is the extreme opposite to Tamas and Yi, and argue that a person's bad situation in life is entirely the product of the environment/society and people should be hand-held and nannied into the "right" choices or protect them from all negative consequences and inconveniences of their bad choices.

That is why I prefer the (non-libertarian) American model to the European model.

[Martinus]

So, to apply this reasoning to the issue at hand - and to answer your question, Jacob, where the point of equilibrium between banning slavery on one hand and allowing Sunday shopping on the other is - I would say as follows:

A decision to allow Sunday shopping decreases the quality of life of people who, broadly speaking, made some bad choices in their life (with the exception of temporary workers, such as students etc, who can be discounted for this purpose) but improves the quality of life of people who, broadly speaking, made a number of good choices in their life and are now probably working very hard during the week, so they can only shop and use services (without a major inconvenience) on weekends.

Since on both sides the quality of life decrease / increase is not substantial, I would say we have to err on the side of the "good choosers", since all things being equal we should actually encourage, not discourage them.

With slavery, the situation is different because the decrease of the "quality of life" (to put it mildly) for the "bad choosers" who would sell themselves into slavery is of such a magnitude, it cannot be justified by the improvement of quality of life for the "good choosers".

[Eddie Teach]

A decision to allow Sunday shopping decreases the quality of life of people who, broadly speaking, made some bad choices in their life (with the exception of temporary workers, such as students etc, who can be discounted for this purpose) but improves the quality of life of people who, broadly speaking, made a number of good choices in their life and are now probably working very hard during the week, so they can only shop and use services (without a major inconvenience) on weekends.

I disagree. Forcing retail stores to close on Sunday decreases the quality of life of both groups in aggregate.

[Martinus]

Then argue with Jacob, not me. He made the quality of life argument. I was just showing why it shouldn't trump the other considerations.

[Razgovory]

Also how aware a person must be the terms and conditions of a contract and how can they legally break the contract.

Isn't that more a matter of individual differences than it is of regulations?  Some people will sign anything you hand them, others won't sign anything without having a lawyer go over it with a fine-tooth comb.  And even among those who read a contract themselves, how much they understand it varies greatly.

And that's not even considering that most employees don't have a written contract.

If we remove government as much as possible the only way to compel behavior from someone is through contracts so when you can back out of contract is kind of important.  A person in a desperate situation may sign a very unfavorable contract.  Imagine a private fire department that is also a real estate broker.  They'll only put out the fire if you sell them the land at 25% of it's estimated value.  You better sign fast because the value of the property is decreasing very, very rapidly.

[Zanza]

So, to apply this reasoning to the issue at hand - and to answer your question, Jacob, where the point of equilibrium between banning slavery on one hand and allowing Sunday shopping on the other is - I would say as follows:

A decision to allow Sunday shopping decreases the quality of life of people who, broadly speaking, made some bad choices in their life (with the exception of temporary workers, such as students etc, who can be discounted for this purpose) but improves the quality of life of people who, broadly speaking, made a number of good choices in their life and are now probably working very hard during the week, so they can only shop and use services (without a major inconvenience) on weekends.

Since on both sides the quality of life decrease / increase is not substantial, I would say we have to err on the side of the "good choosers", since all things being equal we should actually encourage, not discourage them.

With slavery, the situation is different because the decrease of the "quality of life" (to put it mildly) for the "bad choosers" who would sell themselves into slavery is of such a magnitude, it cannot be justified by the improvement of quality of life for the "good choosers".

What if random chance made some "choices" on your behalf and you end up in a disadvantaged group that leaves you with less choices than others? Might you still be worthy of protection by larger society?