The Labor Pains Megathread

[Ideologue]

I'd like to state that I don't think that either Yi or Tam aupport slavery, even cryptoslavery.

They're decent hearted people both, who wouls need only minimal reedecuation to perform their functions in the perfect society, and I want them to know they are loved.

Yi, yes if it is voluntary.  Tamas considers the question irrelevant because slavery is not a form of labor.

Now, I think if they said that they didn't mean it. But I also think you're doing good work in forcing them to confront their ideological biases and sharpen their arguments.

[Razgovory]

B: They'd have been prepared for lives of excellence and social value, like yours.

If the Capitalists knew that restaurants were producing Reds at such a prodigious rate, there would be serious reform in that industry.

[Razgovory]

Yi is Homo economicus, he looks at everything from a free market perspective.  Tamas just doesn't want to live in place like Hungary anymore.  He blames lack of free market for why Hungary is so screwy.

[Admiral Yi]

A restaurant is not defined by it's labor standards, a sweat shop is.   Unsafe conditions, low or no pay, or child labor is what makes a sweat shop a sweat shop.  So your question doesn't make much sense.

The existence of any of those three things makes it a sweat shop?  That makes no sense.  Kids used to work in mines in England; they weren't sweat shops.  Neither are paper delivery routes or snow shoveling jobs.  A sweat shop is typically a labor intensive operation producing clothing.

Now to answer your question, what makes the story about the kids wrong is they were lied to.

[Sheilbh]

Strangely relevant that you're all talking about slavery:

Up to 13,000 working as slaves in UK
Government launches strategy to end slavery as number of victims found to be up to four times higher than thought
David Batty and Chris Johnston
theguardian.com, Saturday 29 November 2014 09.34 GMT


A young Lithuanian woman who was a victim of trafficking and forced into prostitution in the UK. Photograph: Karen Robinson for the Guardian

As many as 13,000 people in Britain are victims of slavery, about four times the number previously thought, analysis for the government has found.

The figure for 2013 marks the first time the government has made an official estimate of the scale of modern slavery in the UK, and includes women forced into prostitution, domestic staff, and workers in fields, factories and fishing.

The National Crime Agency (NCA)'s human trafficking centre had previously put the number at 2,744.

Launching the government's strategy to eradicate modern slavery, the home secretary, Theresa May, said the scale of abuse was shocking.

"The first step to eradicating the scourge of modern slavery is acknowledging and confronting its existence," she said. "The estimated scale of the problem in modern Britain is shocking and these new figures starkly reinforce the case for urgent action."

The data was collated from sources including the police, the UK Border Force, charities and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. The Home Office described the estimate as a "dark figure" that may not have come to the NCA's attention.

Professor Bernard Silverman, the chief scientific adviser to the Home Office, said the new statistical analysis aimed to calculate the number of "hidden" victims who are not reported to the authorities.

"Modern slavery is very often deeply hidden and so it is a great challenge to assess its scale," he said. "The data collected is inevitably incomplete and, in addition, has to be very carefully handled because of its sensitivity."

The modern slavery minister, Karen Bradley, told the BBC the issue was a hidden crime. "What we have to do today is not make people acknowledge it's wrong - everybody knows it's wrong - but we have to find it," she said.

"It's going on in streets, in towns, in villages across Britain and we need to help people find the signs of it so we can find those victims and importantly then find the perpetrators."

The modern slavery bill going through parliament will provide courts in England and Wales with powers to protect victims of human trafficking. Scotland and Northern Ireland are planning similar measures.

May said: "Working with a wide range of partners, we must step up the fight against modern slavery in this country, and internationally, to put an end to the misery suffered by innocent people around the world."

The Home Office said the UK Border Force would introduce specialist trafficking teams at major ports and airports to identify potential victims, and the legal framework would be strengthened for confiscating the proceeds of crime.

But Aidan McQuade, the director of the Anti-Slavery International charity, questioned whether the government's strategy went far enough.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "If you leave an employment relationship, even if you're suffering from any sort of exploitation up to and including forced labour, even if you're suffering from all sorts of physical and sexual violence, you'll be deported.

"So that [puts] enormous power in the hands of unscrupulous employers. And frankly, the protections which the government has put in place are not worth the paper they're written on in order to prevent this sort of exploitation once they've given employers that sort of power."

Many victims are foreign nationals from countries such as Romania, Poland, Albania and Nigeria, but vulnerable British adults and children are also systematically preyed upon by traffickers and slave drivers. The NCA estimates that the UK was the third most common country of origin for slavery victims.

In November last year three "highly traumatised" women were rescued from a house in south London where they appear to have been held captive for three decades, Scotland Yard said. One of the women contacted Aneeta Prem, the founder of the Freedom Charity, after seeing her on TV.

A couple, both in their late 60s, remain on bail after being arrested on suspicion of being involved in forced labour and domestic servitude.

Prem said the south London case had raised awareness of the problem, and that the charity had been receiving more calls.

One of the biggest barriers to freeing victims was the repercussions that family members living in other countries could face, she said. That meant action had to be coordinated with authorities overseas and could take time to arrange.

People needed to be more aware of the problem, she said, and urged anyone who had concerns that "something doesn't seem right" to contact Freedom.

[Razgovory]

A restaurant is not defined by it's labor standards, a sweat shop is.   Unsafe conditions, low or no pay, or child labor is what makes a sweat shop a sweat shop.  So your question doesn't make much sense.

The existence of any of those three things makes it a sweat shop?  That makes no sense.  Kids used to work in mines in England; they weren't sweat shops.  Neither are paper delivery routes or snow shoveling jobs.  A sweat shop is typically a labor intensive operation producing clothing.

Now to answer your question, what makes the story about the kids wrong is they were lied to.

Okay, fine.  A manufacturing job with unsafe conditions, child labor, or low to no pay.  The article also mentions kids being sent to brothels, but those are probably bad as well even if they aren't in manufacturing.

I don't know what it would be called for mining or farming work.  I wonder if there is an equivalent term for a bad labor conditions when picking strawberries.

[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.

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.

My point was that no matter how much regulation you have, some people will still sign contracts that they don't understand, maybe that they don't even read, and not necessarily because they are desperate, they may be just careless or simply over-trusting.  We have protections under contract law in that the provisions of a contract are not enforceable if they are unconscionable or were entered into under duress.  In the situation you stipulate, the contract to sell the property would have been entered into under duress and wouldn't be enforceable. 

I think you're mistakenly attributing to me the extreme libertarian idea that government action can be completely (or nearly completely) replaced by contractual obligations.  I find that idea, well, frankly, retarded, because:  A) without a reasonably strong government to enforce the provisions of contracts, a contract wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on, and B) contract law itself is an area which is fairly heavily regulated by government in the first place.

[Sheilbh]

I think you're mistakenly attributing to me the extreme libertarian idea that government action can be completely (or nearly completely) replaced by contractual obligations.  I find that idea, well, frankly, retarded, because:  A) without a reasonably strong government to enforce the provisions of contracts, a contract wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on, and B) contract law itself is an area which is fairly heavily regulated by government in the first place.

But I would point out that this is where talk of a monolithic 'state' or 'government' falls down in our system. A huge amount of the regulations around contract law - such as duress - come from the Common Law. It's definitely the government in its role of providing legal remedies for parties to a contract, but it's not what would normally be considered 'state' regulation or anything like that.

Incidentally the European Parliament has demanded the Commission pass a binding European Code of Contract which if they do would make me a dyed in the wool 'Better Off Out' voter and campaigner

[Ideologue]

I know the EU is evil, but you can't mean that. It's the first step on the road to World Government where differences no longer exist between peoples, and all are content and cared for and are given the opportunity to reach their potentials.

[Admiral Yi]

Okay, fine.  A manufacturing job with unsafe conditions, child labor, or low to no pay.  The article also mentions kids being sent to brothels, but those are probably bad as well even if they aren't in manufacturing.

I don't know what it would be called for mining or farming work.  I wonder if there is an equivalent term for a bad labor conditions when picking strawberries.

Then for purposes of this discussion let's assume I'm talking about adults working voluntarily in low paying production/assembly jobs.

[Sheilbh]

I know the EU is evil, but you can't mean that. It's the first step on the road to World Government where differences no longer exist between peoples, and all are content and cared for and are given the opportunity to reach their potentials.

English contract law is fine as it is and it'll be a cold day in hell before I agree with the idea of an implied duty of 'good faith'

[Ideologue]

You might not like American contract law, then...

[Sheilbh]

You might not like American contract law, then...

I've no problem with it. But if someone were to try and force the UCC on me

[dps]

I think you're mistakenly attributing to me the extreme libertarian idea that government action can be completely (or nearly completely) replaced by contractual obligations.  I find that idea, well, frankly, retarded, because:  A) without a reasonably strong government to enforce the provisions of contracts, a contract wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on, and B) contract law itself is an area which is fairly heavily regulated by government in the first place.

But I would point out that this is where talk of a monolithic 'state' or 'government' falls down in our system. A huge amount of the regulations around contract law - such as duress - come from the Common Law. It's definitely the government in its role of providing legal remedies for parties to a contract, but it's not what would normally be considered 'state' regulation or anything like that.

Incidentally the European Parliament has demanded the Commission pass a binding European Code of Contract which if they do would make me a dyed in the wool 'Better Off Out' voter and campaigner

I didn't bring up the common law origins of a lot of contract law because a number of posters here don't live in common law jurisdictions. 

[Razgovory]

Okay, fine.  A manufacturing job with unsafe conditions, child labor, or low to no pay.  The article also mentions kids being sent to brothels, but those are probably bad as well even if they aren't in manufacturing.

I don't know what it would be called for mining or farming work.  I wonder if there is an equivalent term for a bad labor conditions when picking strawberries.

Then for purposes of this discussion let's assume I'm talking about adults working voluntarily in low paying production/assembly jobs.

It is kinda neat how the issue of slavery was bouncing around and then you brought up Vietnamese sweat shops aren't bad and I find an article about sweat shops in Vietnam that are using slave labor.  There should be a word for that.