1532
How in the hell
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
1532 points (97.3% liked)
Work Reform
9857 readers
130 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Nothing wrong in making money for someone else, IF you get yourself decent salary and have interesting work.
I dunno, working in construction contracting has taught me that time in man hours is the ultimate pricing value point, that everything can be boiled down to. Someone who gives up their time should reap the most benefits. Someone who owns a business and pays others to work should be heavily taxed.
Earning a bit more does help make it more palatable, but it still isn't fair.
What is fair? How to define fair?
A common saying is that a fair deal is one that neither party feels happy with, because neither one is taking advantage of the other.
How would you apply the general principle to the employment relationship?
I think employees generally get such a raw deal that a fair deal would be refreshing and positive. However when you look at massively overpriced roles, eg consultants, they'd probably say it wasn't fair to give them a fair deal.
I generally agree. However, I was curious whether you had any thoughts related more directly to one of the earlier comments, concerning how fairness, within the context of employment, might be evaluated.
But how do you know that “raw deal” is not fair?
Which is what happens when a person is hired? Both parties are happy with the agreement, otherwise they wouldn’t accept, right?
Most people do not have the luxury of turning down a job offer, as the alternative is hunger and homelessness, which the employer uses as leverage to underpay their employee.
If housing and basic food staples were a human right (free) only then would you see fair wages in the open market, as people would have the option to turn down unfair jobs, forcing the employer to make them fair or hire no one.
Therefore, we come back to question: what is fair?
Based on your own thinking, what would you understand as the attributes of a relationship or agreement that may be considered fair?
I think the standard way of salary negotiations (labour supply and demand) is the only way to define fair salary. If this salary is not sufficient to make decent living, and if we want to correct for that, then it should be corrected by other means, such as UBI, out of compassion or other reasons, but not for fairness reasons.
How do you understand fairness, in the greatest generality, respecting agreements and relationships?
In other words, for agreements or relationships to be fair, in any context, what conditions must be met or features must it have?
Well, for one; Wages keeping up with inflation and productivity would go a long way to being more fair.
But I'm curious why you're asking me what is fair, I already laid that out in my second paragraph in my previous comment. As I said, if the absolute basics to living were freely available, people would be free to reject unfair offers, and thus, in a theoretical 'free market' wages and benefits would increase to a truly fair and equal level.
So, your statement is that it is fair to guarantee the basic of living regardless of the person works or not. How do you respond to criticism that it is not fair to forcefully take money via taxes and spend them setting up standard of living for someone else?
It wouldn't be for someone else, it would be for everyone. Most people are okay with the idea of Universal Basic Income, because everyone gets it, even the rich, it's fair.
Imagine applying that universal concept, but to food and shelter. It would not only help the most destitute, but also the innovators. Research has shown that people are more willing to risk becoming entrepreneurs in Canada due to healthcare not being tied to employment. Imagine if we took away the risk of homelessness and malnutrition from not working for someone else? Hundreds of thousands would now be in a beautiful position to start their own business with far less risk to their, or their families, well being.
I would also place emphasis on the Basic part of Basic Necessities. It would only be feasible to provide just the most economical basics, which would mean a small square footage dwelling (think large apartment blocks, cheap to build, but efficient to heat and maintain), running water, electricity (with a kwh power-limit per month, anything over that would cost money), internet since it's a required utility in the modern age, and core/cheap but nutritious staple foods. We're not talking luxury apartments and food here.
(Personally, I would argue Universal Basic Income is not viable within our current system, as that extra money would be quickly siphoned out of everyone's pocket by increased rent and artificial price increases all around to capture this extra capital that would be floating around. It could only work if there were limits on rent and other basic necessities).
Being OK and being fair are different things. And I think significant amount of people, at least in US are against this, so, for them it would not be OK or fair. The reason I was bringing this up is to point on difficulty to define what fair is if it relies on things that are not fair to be implemented.
I mean, some people are against social security, welfare, and medicaid despite how significant of a difference they have made to reduce starvation, poverty, and medical induced bankruptcy for the disadvantaged. And no matter how much evidence is shown of those societal benefits, they would reject it because it does not align with their world view or is not in their immediate interest.
As complete 100% consensus is generally impossible to achieve, I would argue the thing that helps the most people is generally the most ethical choice, but that's just my 2 cents.
Out of curiosity, how do you think those sorts of programs being implemented would be a net-negative for society as a whole?
I do not know if they will be net positive, it depends on metric the comparison is made with. I think on pure economic side it is not beneficial for GDP growth. Just take EU and compare it with US. I think the system in US is more fair and closer to true, fair value of labor.
But I think the fair world is a world without compassion and with huge separation between rich and poor. I think on ethical grounds we should make the world less fair, more equalized, despite of the fact that it reduces GDP growth, because there are other metrics possible, like human happiness and well being.
Our conversation started from me noticing that people in this discussion expecting that fair value for labor is higher than what is typically paid. And I think the reverse is true because there are things that artificially increase wages, like minimum wage in many states. So, “be careful what you wish for” kind of thing.
I'm a bit confused by your definition of fair, to the point where I think that we hold the same precepts, but we may using different words for them. I would make the case that increasing 'fairness' is equivalent to making things more equalized. I would use both terms interchangeably.
In any deal, if one party has more leverage than the other, in principle it's not a 'fair' deal, even if the disadvantaged party rationalizes that it could've been worse, or that the other party didn't fully exploit the power of their advantage. In the context of labor, reducing the leverage that employers have over workers is evening out the playing field, which I would say is more fair.
To be clear, in an ideal world, neither party would have leverage over the other, and people would work for someone else or with each other only due to it being mutually beneficial in equal measure. In reality, things will never be that 'perfect', but I think it's absolutely possible to remove the more egregious points of leverage.
The people using existing leverages will try to prevent that by removal kicking and screaming because they don't want their advantages to be reduced, however they should try to be content with an equal power dynamic if they consider themselves at all moral. In all other areas of life humans have decried unjust imbalances of power, and I don't see how labor relations would be subject to different rules than, say, competitive sports. We don't stack the deck against one team or the other, we try to make it fair.
So when you say a fair world would is a world without compassion and even more division between rich and poor, I must ask, how are you defining the word fair?
Fair: without favoritism, cheating, impartial. A fair fight is when two people fighting without any help from anybody. Giving one guy extra boost (say, special gloves) because he is weaker is unfair, but more equal.
I think equality in freedom is fair. Equality in means is comparison and not fair, since you have to be partial and take money from the rich and give to the poor. It would be fair only if the rich actually stole from the poor against the law of the land, but if the rich earned himself (say, he is a successful lawyer) then equalization of means is not fair.
Yes, everyone loves their job and is happy with their pay for their job. You solved it bud, great work.
Nope. Both parties benefit. Neither is happy.
I suppose feelings about a deal, after it is reached, are generally determined in some part by the original motive for seeking it.
That’s your definition of fairness?
Did I say that?
No, but that’s what I asked. So, just checking.
You make money for someone else in exchange for the safety of a consistent paycheck. Its like the old feudal system, in theory you are being protected in exchange for your labour.
Of course in practise you are at the mercy of the company, and in the feudal system the protection you were afforded meant you needed to pay for your own armour and fight to the death to protect your owner.
Eh, I'd argue that can make it more palatable, but honestly I do think, at least in most cases (I can think of outliers), it's generally pretty exploitative to profit off of someone else's labor that they themselves are not actually wanting to do themselves, especially if the threat of homelessness and hunger is the prime motivator for the person doing the work. Like, it's not really fair in the grand scheme of things.
A simple way to fix that I guess would be if every company was a co-op. Since then everyone is profiting equally, and no one's labor is being exploited for the exclusive benefit of another.
If you're one of the lucky few sure. But then you're kinda part of the problem. The vast, overwhelming majority of people on the planet work jobs they don't really like just to keep a roof above their heads.
That’s the issue, not if someone else makes profit or not. If nobody makes profit from your work, but you still work job you really do not like just to keep roof above your head, then what’s the difference?
Why would someone need to work a degrading job simply to remain housed, other than because such impositions support the profit motive for landlords, lenders, and employers?
Why do you think it is because of that? Do you think the temp agriculture jobs, for example, would suddenly become having huge payments if farmers, who hires temp workers, have no profit? Please consider that farming is subsidized in US, because it is difficult to make profits there. Or do you think that cleaners who work in non-profit organizations have huge salaries and interesting job?
I doubt there could be much meaning found in the possibility that corporate farms "suddenly" would have no profits.
Corporate farms are structured around the profit motive, which is supported by the claim they assert for exclusive control over certain plots of the land, and for exclusive ownership of the products from using such land. For farm workers not to be exploited, they must stop upholding respect for such claims. Plainly, their lives would be vastly better in consequence, as the full value of their products would be distributed among themselves, with no share being taken from them by anyone else simply from a claim to private ownership.