The Labor Pains Megathread

[Tamas]

I can't believe this shit is still going on. I mean sure it is doing its downward slide in quality from CC to Raz, but who is the dogmatic here, when you are unable to properly argue for your slightly different opinion, because you are immediately being declared a supporter of slavery and physical coercion, despite the original topic completely sealed off from slavery by very basic laws of any half-decent state.

[Martinus]

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. 

The point is that what constitutes unacceptable duress is a matter for debate and policy - it is not clear cut.

Raz's example about (private) fire fighter company is actually quite good. It's not so different from a situation where you need a job or your family will starve - and the only job available for you is one with very low work conditions, in a local sweat shop.

[Martinus]

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

Why? That's a silly position to take. If there is one thing that is unambiguously great about the EU, it's the uniformisation of laws, so you don't get different rules and standards every 100 miles.

[Martinus]

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'

Wow, that's so ignorant. The more I read about various "pearls of wisdom" like this from British posters here (and from the ones I used to consider less stupid), the more I am convinced we will be better off if you guys just fuck off and leave the EU already.

[Admiral Yi]

The honeymoon is over. 

[crazy canuck]

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

But dps is quite correct that the law (both common law and statutory law) can only be enforced by a strong state because it is only a strong state that can create the legal system needed to rule on and enforce the law.  Put simply, the Rule of Law can only thrive in a strong state.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Its not so voluntary when the only other choice is unemployment and starvation.

[crazy canuck]

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'

What is wrong with an implied duty of good faith?

It is in our law of contract and I believe it is pretty well entrenched in the US (JR will set me right if it isnt).

edit: and just to make sure whe are not talking past eachother here is a recent SCC decision that clarified the duty in Canada.  You will see that Freedom to Contract is important but there are limits.

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14438/index.do

[Razgovory]

I can't believe this shit is still going on. I mean sure it is doing its downward slide in quality from CC to Raz, but who is the dogmatic here, when you are unable to properly argue for your slightly different opinion, because you are immediately being declared a supporter of slavery and physical coercion, despite the original topic completely sealed off from slavery by very basic laws of any half-decent state.

What, now you are a statist?

[crazy canuck]

I can't believe this shit is still going on. I mean sure it is doing its downward slide in quality from CC to Raz, but who is the dogmatic here, when you are unable to properly argue for your slightly different opinion, because you are immediately being declared a supporter of slavery and physical coercion, despite the original topic completely sealed off from slavery by very basic laws of any half-decent state.

So you never really understood the argument.

[Razgovory]

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. 

The point is that what constitutes unacceptable duress is a matter for debate and policy - it is not clear cut.

Raz's example about (private) fire fighter company is actually quite good. It's not so different from a situation where you need a job or your family will starve - and the only job available for you is one with very low work conditions, in a local sweat shop.

Well Crassus thought if it before I did.

[Martinus]

I guess my point is that the Yi/Tamas/dps side's assertion that some choices (except for a strictly defined duress) are fully free is illusory; but at the same time, it is very often that the choices become illusory because of earlier actual bad decisions made by a person (for example, it may very well be that your family will starve unless you take a job that has bad working conditions and pays pittance - so the choice is not really there; but this is often a consequence of the fact that you did not study to be qualified for a better job and started a family you could not afford in the first place).

I think we should strive to alleviate the consequences of the former, while not forgetting the broader picture of the latter.

I guess my position actually crystallises as that of the meritocratic paternalism.

[CountDeMoney]

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

Its not so voluntary when the only other choice is unemployment and starvation.

Dude, you're not getting it.  You don't have to apply for a low-paying job because you don't have one, and you don't have to accept a job offer for the only job you can get.

[Tamas]

I guess my point is that the Yi/Tamas/dps side's assertion that some choices (except for a strictly defined duress) are fully free is illusory; but at the same time, it is very often that the choices become illusory because of earlier actual bad decisions made by a person (for example, it may very well be that your family will starve unless you take a job that has bad working conditions and pays pittance - so the choice is not really there; but this is often a consequence of the fact that you did not study to be qualified for a better job and started a family you could not afford in the first place).

I think we should strive to alleviate the consequences of the former, while not forgetting the broader picture of the latter.

I guess my position actually crystallises as that of the meritocratic paternalism.

No the point is that there are millions of reasons why somebody would take a shitty job, and it is way more efficient to let individuals sort this out assuming free will n both sides, then creating a byAntine labyrinth of rules.

And once again regarding strong state: what you mean with that is exactly what I mean by that: a state strong enough  to enforce a level playing field. That is no opposition to the idea of a modern free market. It is a requirement for it.

[Martinus]

I guess my point is that the Yi/Tamas/dps side's assertion that some choices (except for a strictly defined duress) are fully free is illusory; but at the same time, it is very often that the choices become illusory because of earlier actual bad decisions made by a person (for example, it may very well be that your family will starve unless you take a job that has bad working conditions and pays pittance - so the choice is not really there; but this is often a consequence of the fact that you did not study to be qualified for a better job and started a family you could not afford in the first place).

I think we should strive to alleviate the consequences of the former, while not forgetting the broader picture of the latter.

I guess my position actually crystallises as that of the meritocratic paternalism.

No the point is that there are millions of reasons why somebody would take a shitty job, and it is way more efficient to let individuals sort this out assuming free will n both sides, then creating a byAntine labyrinth of rules.

And once again regarding strong state: what you mean with that is exactly what I mean by that: a state strong enough  to enforce a level playing field. That is no opposition to the idea of a modern free market. It is a requirement for it.

Free market with no restrictions inevitably leads to a monopoly - which is the very antithesis of freedom of choice.