The Labor Pains Megathread

[MadImmortalMan]

What you described is Britain in the 70s. Thatcher liberalised (and destroyed) the pubs. She limited the number of pubs a brewery could own to 2000 and required them to allow landlords to sell guest beers. The idea was it'd lead to a more free, competitive market.

That's an eye poppingly high limit! That's a significant limitation?

Isn't adding more rules to the industry the opposite of liberalizing it? She regulated it more.

[mongers]

But I guess you are right under some circumstances.  If we enter the enlightened stage where there are no labor protections, and workers have to always get the bottom dollar for their labor, then the bottom dollar would be higher for weekends and holidays. 

However, if you start off on the slippery slope of trying to even out the power for the workers by legal protections, then you have to do it evenly.  You can't mandate minimum wage but not mandate safe working conditions, for example, or otherwise employers will compensate for the higher mandated wages by making conditions more dangerous if that saves them a penny.

If only there were organizations that existed to represent workers by protecting them and requiring employers to maintain certain standards, such wages and safe working conditions;  one that would unite them in a common cause of empowerment against exploitation.   

Nope not coming up with anything in the Thatcherite/Reaganite/librarytarian canon, might this be hinting at some mythic time before The Modern Age?

[jimmy olsen]

The big labor conversation of the last few pages should be excised by a mod and made it's own thread.

MiM, I'm not saying she didn't add regulations, I'm just agog at the number. There are only 45,000 bars in the United States and we're more than five times as large as 80s Britain. 2,000 should be a huge percentage of the market there, hardly a limitation at all against anything other than a monopoly. How much higher is the ratio of bars to population in the UK than America for that not to be so?

[crazy canuck]

Are you familiar with the concept of 'rights' as opposed to 'terms and conditions'?

i don't think any western democratic nation thinks that people have a right to work only 9-5. people have a right to be free from slavery or unnecessarily hazardous work environments, but they don't have a right to be free from a night shift.

All western countries have hours of work legislation that limit the number of hours an employer can make an employee work without paying overtime as well as absolute limits on hours of work that cannot be worked even with the payment of overtime.

[Eddie Teach]

All western countries have hours of work legislation that limit the number of hours an employer can make an employee work without paying overtime as well as absolute limits on hours of work that cannot be worked even with the payment of overtime.

Yeah, laws that you can't work 100 hours in a week. We don't have laws saying you can't work at 2 a.m.

[sbr]

Are you familiar with the concept of 'rights' as opposed to 'terms and conditions'?

i don't think any western democratic nation thinks that people have a right to work only 9-5. people have a right to be free from slavery or unnecessarily hazardous work environments, but they don't have a right to be free from a night shift.

All western countries have hours of work legislation that limit the number of hours an employer can make an employee work without paying overtime as well as absolute limits on hours of work that cannot be worked even with the payment of overtime.

I have no idea what the absolute maximum number of hours I can work here.  I am rather certain I have exceeded that number multiple times though.

[Ideologue]

Jacob, what is abhorrent about an individual making a choice that he believes betters his position?  If a worker is willing to sacrifice his evenings and weekends in exchange for more money, who are we to tell him that his choice is immoral?

It lowers the standards/conditions floor and inculcates a climate of fear amongst workers who would otherwise choose not to sacrifice their evenings and weekends in exchange for more money, but now must.

And at that point, the labor supply is increased, and "more money" becomes "the same amount of money" becomes "less money."

Of course, outside of human bondage there's going to be the natural wage floor, i.e. the amount of money required to feed the caloric expenditure of doing the labor.  Hooray for liberty!

[Admiral Yi]

Why must they, how does the supply of labor increase, and wut?

[Eddie Teach]

The only reason it's preferable to have nights and weekends off is so that you can do social activities at those times, many of which require somebody else to be working. Not letting them work just makes things worse for everyone.

[Ideologue]

Why must they?: they are now competing with people that will, thus to keep up, they must go what the in-demand employees will.  (Honestly, I can't believe you're asking this question.)

The other part isn't rigorous, but if the labor supply grows, the extra money is unlikely to exceed whatever the hourly rate is: certainly this is the case at where I work, where they realized that people could be bullied into working extra hours and didn't need to be positively incentivized.

If the wages offered are lower than the natural wage floor, as for example occurred at Auschwitz, laborers die.  You won't work for wages that won't keep you fed, or at least not for very long.  This was offered as a rhetorical flourish.

[Ideologue]

That said, I do agree with Eddie Teach.  It's a stupid system.

[Razgovory]

Jacob, what is abhorrent about an individual making a choice that he believes betters his position?  If a worker is willing to sacrifice his evenings and weekends in exchange for more money, who are we to tell him that his choice is immoral?

Re your point about German retail unions opposing extended hours, that's all fine and good as far as it goes, but it doesn't tell us if 100% of their membership feels the same way, and it doesn't tell at all how prospective employees who are not members of the union feel.

If in fact 100% of potential German retail workers would absolutely refuse to work evenings and weekends, then the legislation is pointless.

Presumably when you talk about making choices to better their position you are using the libertarian principle of non-coercion.  Otherwise you would be allowing people to commit murder or theft.  Am I correct in making this assumption?

[Sheilbh]

What you described is Britain in the 70s. Thatcher liberalised (and destroyed) the pubs. She limited the number of pubs a brewery could own to 2000 and required them to allow landlords to sell guest beers. The idea was it'd lead to a more free, competitive market.

That's an eye poppingly high limit! That's a significant limitation?

Before the legislation there were around 60-65 000 pubs in the UK. Now there's only about 50 000 () though that doesn't include bars, wine bars, clubs that sort of thing. Thankfully the pace of closing down has, I believe, slowed in recent years

Isn't adding more rules to the industry the opposite of liberalizing it? She regulated it more.

Sure but with the intent (if not the effect) of making it easier for new market entrants and promoting competition. There were 6 breweries prior to the law who sold about 75-80% of the beer in Britain (hence why it was shit). The theory was if you break the unnecessary brewery-landlord link there'd be competition and lots of independent brewers/pubs opening up selling whatever they wanted. As it is the PubCos moved in

[jimmy olsen]

Before the legislation there were around 60-65 000 pubs in the UK. Now there's only about 50 000 () though that doesn't include bars, wine bars, clubs that sort of thing. Thankfully the pace of closing down has, I believe, slowed in recent years

What the hell!? That's still more than the entire United States! 

[Eddie Teach]

I don't think your figure includes all the restaurants that serve booze.