The Right tighten the screw that little bit more..

[Seth]

I'm not sure I would agree with that analysis. They aren't stupid by any means. Capital is super-international now and most of the manufacturing jobs are in low wage economies and funded by the ever richer rich people of the west and elsewhere, leaving the average citizen in the so called 'developed' world poorer and poorer.

Of course Seth would have us getting on our bikes and offering to work in Chinese factories at cheaper rates than the Chinese themselves.

That's what you get when you join a union and make employing you too expensive for the company. The company wisely decides to shut down the union plant and open one in China, where labor is cheaper and they can manufacture goods for sale at a price that is attractive to consumers (generally including you, the laid-off union worker) so that the company can continue in business.

Why do you think Detroit is a giant slum? Because union workers demanded too much of the auto industry in the US, which was out-competed by Japan. The auto unions shat in their pie plates and now wonder why their pie tastes like shit. Only the intervention of a Socialist in the White House managed to keep GM from being liquidated, which is exactly what should have happened. Obama defrauded the secured bond holder of GM bonds and turned the company over to the unions, and poured billions of taxpayer dollars into the company, turning it into a socialist collective company. Which is why I'll never, ever buy another GM product.

Left to their own devices, without the illegal and unconstitutional interference by Obama, the unions would have been eating shit pie down in the unemployment line, where they belong as punishment for being greedy socialists who demanded more than the goose that laid the golden eggs could produce, which killed the goose and cost them their jobs.

[Coito ergo sum]

I say stupid, not unintelligent. And then that would only apply to the "best" of them. It was stupid to milk the working class to death so they could get a yacht that was 10' longer.

You want to point to one luxury yacht laborer who was "milked to death?" Didn't think so. I'm betting that every one of them took home a paycheck in exactly the amount that they agreed was just compensation for their labor contribution to the creation of the yacht. Why should they get more than they bargained for?

I think it would be untrue to say that people only accept jobs for which they think they are receiving "just" compensation. I've accepted unjust compensation for jobs before. I had to live with it, and I made the deal. But, don't confuse accepting a deal with "agreeing that the compensation is JUST." Those are two different things.

If you accepted it, it's just. You were not enslaved or forced to work for less than you agreed to. When you accept a job voluntarily, you ratify a contract with the employer as to how much work you will provide for how much pay. If you don't like the pay scale, then find another job. If you can't find another job because YOU aren't qualified for a higher paying job, whose fault is that? It's YOUR FAULT, and you need to apply yourself to become better qualified and of greater value to an employer.

Sorry, but whatever you agree to accept by way of compensation is absolutely just compensation for your labor BECAUSE YOU AGREED TO IT for reasons of your own having nothing to do with the employer's need to hire an employee to do a job.

Just because YOU think you're worth more than the employer does means nothing, and particularly it does not make the wage you accept "unjust."

Not necessarily. A desperate man may accept a job that pays $10 a day for backbreaking work. That does not make it just. Whether a salary is "just" is plainly a value judgment that may differ from person to person.

Whether someone is enslaved or forced to work is not the measure of justness. One can be unjustly treated without having been enslaved.

Sure, if you accept a job to provide work for an hourly pay, then you have a contract to that extent. However, not all contracts are just, even those that weren't a result of force or slavery.

Yes, if you don't like the pay scale, you can find another job. However, simply working for someone for pay does not mean that you do, in fact, "like" the pay scale. You could hate the pay scale, but merely continue there because you have no alternative and he could be accepting the salary despite the fact that he doesn't like it. Sure, a deal is a deal. But, don't confuse accepting a deal with "liking" the deal. Most of us have disliked a deal we've made.

You said, "Just because YOU think you're worth more than the employer does means nothing, and particularly it does not make the wage you accept "unjust."" What do you mean it means "nothing?" It means something to the YOU in that sentence. And, the meaning ascribed to it by the YOU is no less objectively important than the employer's view of it. It may mean nothing TO THE EMPLOYER. There is no objective justness of a wage. Acceptance, however, is not the same as "liking" something and is not the same as "justness."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I say stupid, not unintelligent. And then that would only apply to the "best" of them. It was stupid to milk the working class to death so they could get a yacht that was 10' longer.

You want to point to one luxury yacht laborer who was "milked to death?" Didn't think so. I'm betting that every one of them took home a paycheck in exactly the amount that they agreed was just compensation for their labor contribution to the creation of the yacht. Why should they get more than they bargained for?

"You want to point to one luxury yacht laborer who was "milked to death?" " That made no fucking sense at all. Do you read the posts before responding?

[Seth]

You seem to miss the point. Labour laws were introduced, for example, to stop 10 year olds being used in coal mines at a penny a day, stopping people having to work 6.5 days a week and more and moderating at least to some extent the rapacious exploitation of labour by the owners of the means of production. They introduced a little bit of humanity into a barbarous relationship dynamic.

No, I get the point. I made the distinction between worker PROTECTION laws, such as child labor and workplace safety laws, and REDISTRIBUTIVE WORKER WAGE ENHANCEMENT laws, such as government rules that prohibit an employer from hiring and firing at will, according to his business needs.

It's you that is trying to conflate the two to bolster your argument.

The free market for labor works fine when it's a free market and the government stays out of the redistribution of wealth business.

[Twoflower]

I'm not talking about socialism, you paranoid fuck, I'm talking about where the rich got their money. You started off with rich people who had money. Begin in the middle much?

Do this, build a factory that is 100% automated. Build all the factories that way. Every plebeian job in the world, done by robots. So, who buys the stuff the factories make?

Zilla this is a reminder to play nice and not call names.

[devogue]

You seem to miss the point. Labour laws were introduced, for example, to stop 10 year olds being used in coal mines at a penny a day, stopping people having to work 6.5 days a week and more and moderating at least to some extent the rapacious exploitation of labour by the owners of the means of production. They introduced a little bit of humanity into a barbarous relationship dynamic.

And ten year olds don't work for a penny day and labour is no longer exploited in the ways it used to be. Working conditions in the UK are extraordinarily good, covered as they are by various acts of government concerning, safety, wellbeing and the needs of workers.

But Seth is absolutely right. If a business is failing and its order book is empty it has to cut costs. Let's say it was my wine retail business - do I sell the tills, the shelving, the windows, the doors, and other fixtures and fittings to cover the cost of an employee who is standing about with nothing to do? Or does it make more sense for me to fire the employee, work longer hours myself to try and salvage the business in the hope that if I can turn things round I can employ people once again? It's obviously the latter course - I have actually had to do that. It was fucking painful to let people go who were friends as well as co-workers. We're not all rapacious bastards, but what else could I do?

[Seth]

I say stupid, not unintelligent. And then that would only apply to the "best" of them. It was stupid to milk the working class to death so they could get a yacht that was 10' longer.

You want to point to one luxury yacht laborer who was "milked to death?" Didn't think so. I'm betting that every one of them took home a paycheck in exactly the amount that they agreed was just compensation for their labor contribution to the creation of the yacht. Why should they get more than they bargained for?

"You want to point to one luxury yacht laborer who was "milked to death?" " That made no fucking sense at all. Do you read the posts before responding?

Yes, carefully. You said it was "stupid to milk the working class to death so they could get a yacht that was 10' longer." I challenged you to cite one example of anyone in the working class building luxury yachts who was milked to death in the process. I was challenging your hyperbole. I'm fully aware that you meant the working class in general and that you were alluding to supposedly unfair wage practices that enhanced the wealth of some unspecified group, but you framed it badly and I poked fun at your inability to clearly articulate your complaint.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I say stupid, not unintelligent. And then that would only apply to the "best" of them. It was stupid to milk the working class to death so they could get a yacht that was 10' longer.

You want to point to one luxury yacht laborer who was "milked to death?" Didn't think so. I'm betting that every one of them took home a paycheck in exactly the amount that they agreed was just compensation for their labor contribution to the creation of the yacht. Why should they get more than they bargained for?

"You want to point to one luxury yacht laborer who was "milked to death?" " That made no fucking sense at all. Do you read the posts before responding?

Yes, carefully. You said it was "stupid to milk the working class to death so they could get a yacht that was 10' longer." I challenged you to cite one example of anyone in the working class building luxury yachts who was milked to death in the process. I was challenging your hyperbole. I'm fully aware that you meant the working class in general and that you were alluding to supposedly unfair wage practices that enhanced the wealth of some unspecified group, but you framed it badly and I poked fun at your inability to clearly articulate your complaint.

I say stupid, not unintelligent. And then that would only apply to the "best" of them. It was stupid to milk the working class to death so they could get a yacht that was 10' longer.

I was talking about the fat cats, Seth. YOU GOTTA READ THE POST.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth, unions and employment rights are not the same thing as socialism. Employment law and rights exist (mostly) to protect the employee from unfair mistreatment. That's not socialism. Unions exist to give employees a collective voice when negotiating with employers. That's not socialism either.

It certainly is socialism, particularly these days, when the major labor unions in the US and elsewhere are openly aligned with the Communist Party and the Socialist Worker's Party.

The question presented here is whether "employment rights" should include socialistic elements like forcing an employer to continue to pay employees they no longer require. What's "unfair mistreatment" about firing superfluous employees? The essence of the complaint was that the government was intending to CHANGE the employment laws to allow employers more flexibility in firing redundant employees, so as to reduce the burden on business having to support idlers and layabouts who are being propped up by the company as the direct result of socialist labor policies.

I gotta side with Pappa. Laws concerning employment rights are not socialism, per se. Socialism is when the means of production are owned by the State or "publicly." There have been laws governing the treatment of workers, and there have been unions, since before there ever was socialism.

That's a narrow definition of socialism I'm afraid, and one that does not reflect reality. What you're actually referring to is communism.

No, socialism. Communism add the abolition of private property and some other stuff, and also adds the idea of a Stateless society, which isn't necessary for mere socialism. Communism is a form of socialism.

However, the point is that there are "worker protection and treatment laws" that are legitimately intended to protect workers from physical harm in the workplace, and there are redistributive employment laws that use the force of government, through unions, to interfere with the free operation of the labor market and the negotiations for labor contracts in ways that favor the workers over the interests of the employers.

I haven't seen where a detailed description of the rule in place has been posted, so on what basis can we make a decision as to which this is?

That is the primary purpose of labor unions today, pure socialistic skewing of the free labor market in favor of union employees at the expense of employers by government fiat. That's what this thread is about. It's not about protecting workers from being injured or making sure they get their paycheck, it's about forcing companies to support and pay for employees they no longer need because the unions and the socialists don't like the idea of workers being fired. They think that working for a company is a right, and that they have the right to hold a job forever, whether or not the company needs them. That's absolutely socialist.

I thought the thread was about the changes in the law proposed in Britain in the article in the OP.

Some union folks are aligned with communists and socialists, and may even be communists and socialists. But, unions and employment laws themselves are not socialism. They can and do of course exist within socialist systems, but they can and do also exist in other systems.

Depends on the specific employment law.

And, to assume that the employees are idlers and layabouts lacks foundation.

If they are being paid not to work by order of the government, they cannot be anything but idlers and layabouts.

That's not logically true. They can be layabouts and idlers, but not necessarily. Everyone is being paid something on order of the government, since there is a minimum wage. I certainly don't think that all those making minimum wage are idlers and layabouts.

It's likely in a reduction in force that many being reduced are good workers. Say a plant is closing - you think only the idlers and layabouts are laid off? Such an assumption is completely unwarranted. In fact, what the article is talking about is not even the letting go of idlers and layabouts, who may be fired for violations of work rules, what we're talking about is an employer making someone who is not terminable for cause (like idling or laying about), but has to be let go for economic reasons.

I'm not talking about the quality of any particular worker, I'm referring to the fact that if a company has no need of an employee and nothing for him to do, but the company must continue to employ that employee because the government says the employee cannot be laid off or fired, that employee must perforce be an idler or layabout because there's no productive work for them to do.

Whether the company has a "need" or not means NOTHING. If an employee is working his ass off, and showing up consistently, and getting the job done, the fact that the company doesn't "need" his department anymore doesn't make the employee a "layabout and an idler." It just means the company doesn't "need" something anymore.

The reverse is also true - I have quit jobs I no longer "needed." That didn't make the company an idler and layabout company. It made the company no longer needed.

[Seth]

I say stupid, not unintelligent. And then that would only apply to the "best" of them. It was stupid to milk the working class to death so they could get a yacht that was 10' longer.

You want to point to one luxury yacht laborer who was "milked to death?" Didn't think so. I'm betting that every one of them took home a paycheck in exactly the amount that they agreed was just compensation for their labor contribution to the creation of the yacht. Why should they get more than they bargained for?

I think it would be untrue to say that people only accept jobs for which they think they are receiving "just" compensation. I've accepted unjust compensation for jobs before. I had to live with it, and I made the deal. But, don't confuse accepting a deal with "agreeing that the compensation is JUST." Those are two different things.

If you accepted it, it's just. You were not enslaved or forced to work for less than you agreed to. When you accept a job voluntarily, you ratify a contract with the employer as to how much work you will provide for how much pay. If you don't like the pay scale, then find another job. If you can't find another job because YOU aren't qualified for a higher paying job, whose fault is that? It's YOUR FAULT, and you need to apply yourself to become better qualified and of greater value to an employer.

Sorry, but whatever you agree to accept by way of compensation is absolutely just compensation for your labor BECAUSE YOU AGREED TO IT for reasons of your own having nothing to do with the employer's need to hire an employee to do a job.

Just because YOU think you're worth more than the employer does means nothing, and particularly it does not make the wage you accept "unjust."

Not necessarily. A desperate man may accept a job that pays $10 a day for backbreaking work. That does not make it just. Whether a salary is "just" is plainly a value judgment that may differ from person to person.

Of course it's just. It's ten bucks more than he makes not working. He accepts the job knowing the labor involved, and he accepts the amount tendered. No one forces him to labor, and he's free to take some other job. The fact that he's "desperate" is not the concern of the employer, whose interest is in obtaining the most work for the least cost. If the labor market is glutted, and there are lots of people willing to work, the cost of labor goes down. The laborer can always enhance his economic position by becoming qualified for higher paying work. That's eminently fair and just.

Your statement presumes that the employer owes something to the laborer other than what the laborer negotiated in the employment contract. This is a false presumption.

Whether someone is enslaved or forced to work is not the measure of justness. One can be unjustly treated without having been enslaved.

Not really. So long as the person is free to leave and seek other employment, he's consenting to the relationship, which makes it inherently just.

Sure, if you accept a job to provide work for an hourly pay, then you have a contract to that extent. However, not all contracts are just, even those that weren't a result of force or slavery.

Yes, if you don't like the pay scale, you can find another job. However, simply working for someone for pay does not mean that you do, in fact, "like" the pay scale. You could hate the pay scale, but merely continue there because you have no alternative and he could be accepting the salary despite the fact that he doesn't like it. Sure, a deal is a deal. But, don't confuse accepting a deal with "liking" the deal. Most of us have disliked a deal we've made.

Doesn't matter whether you like it or not. Justice is not about your personal preferences or satisfaction, it's about whether the situation is fair to everyone involved, and if you accept the offer, then it's ipso facto fair.

You said, "Just because YOU think you're worth more than the employer does means nothing, and particularly it does not make the wage you accept "unjust."" What do you mean it means "nothing?" It means something to the YOU in that sentence. And, the meaning ascribed to it by the YOU is no less objectively important than the employer's view of it. It may mean nothing TO THE EMPLOYER. There is no objective justness of a wage. Acceptance, however, is not the same as "liking" something and is not the same as "justness."

Yes, it's exactly that. A just wage is a wage that you accept after a free negotiation with your employer. Neither is coerced by the other, and the terms are accepted by both. That's just and fair.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think it would be untrue to say that people only accept jobs for which they think they are receiving "just" compensation. I've accepted unjust compensation for jobs before. I had to live with it, and I made the deal. But, don't confuse accepting a deal with "agreeing that the compensation is JUST." Those are two different things.

If you accepted it, it's just. You were not enslaved or forced to work for less than you agreed to. When you accept a job voluntarily, you ratify a contract with the employer as to how much work you will provide for how much pay. If you don't like the pay scale, then find another job. If you can't find another job because YOU aren't qualified for a higher paying job, whose fault is that? It's YOUR FAULT, and you need to apply yourself to become better qualified and of greater value to an employer.

Sorry, but whatever you agree to accept by way of compensation is absolutely just compensation for your labor BECAUSE YOU AGREED TO IT for reasons of your own having nothing to do with the employer's need to hire an employee to do a job.

Just because YOU think you're worth more than the employer does means nothing, and particularly it does not make the wage you accept "unjust."

Not necessarily. A desperate man may accept a job that pays $10 a day for backbreaking work. That does not make it just. Whether a salary is "just" is plainly a value judgment that may differ from person to person.[/quote]

Of course it's just.

In my opinion, it isn't.

It's ten bucks more than he makes not working.

That doesn't make it just. It makes it accepted.

He accepts the job knowing the labor involved,

Not necessarily. Many people accept jobs without knowing the labor involved, specifically. Sometimes employers pull switcheroos, and you take a job, start working and the job is materially different or entails significantly more work then contemplated. He may have taken the job in spite of that unknown, but that doesn't mean he knew it. You're assuming he accepts the job "knowing" something you have no way of knowing he knows.

and he accepts the amount tendered.

Yes, we have been over this. Acceptance is not the only factor in a determination justice or justness.

No one forces him to labor,

So? Force is not the only thing that causes things to be unjust. Unjust means "lacking in fairness." Unjustness does not require force.

and he's free to take some other job.

Maybe. You don't know that either. He may live in a place where there is no other job to be found, and he may be physically unable to move.

He is, like most people, however, if we make that assumption, probably not in that situation. But, his freedom is something you are assuming, and it isn't axiomatic. But, let's assume he is. Many things happen to free people that are unfair. I think it's unjust for employers to fire people for no good reason. They are lawfully allowed to do it, of course. But, fairness and justness are not set by the law.

The fact that he's "desperate" is not the concern of the employer,

I don't give a flying fuck what the employer's concern is. I don't judge justness and fairness by the measure of what concerns an employer. I think employees should give 2 weeks notice when they quit, and when they don't - and when they for no good reason walk out the door without a word and don't come back, putting the employer in a difficult situation as a result -- I think that's unfair and unjust. The employee is certainly allowed to do it legally, and it's no concern of the employee what the employer would prefer in terms of notice. But, it's still unjust in my opinion. The fact that the employer hired the employee knowing that the employee was legally entitled to quit at any time doesn't make it "just" that an employee fuck over the employer. See what I mean?

whose interest is in obtaining the most work for the least cost.

The employer's interest is not the measure of justness. It's a factor, but not the only factor.

If the labor market is glutted, and there are lots of people willing to work, the cost of labor goes down. The laborer can always enhance his economic position by becoming qualified for higher paying work. That's eminently fair and just.

Yes, it is. However, that doesn't make every pay scale on the planet "just" merely because someone accepts it without being forced to do so.

Your statement presumes that the employer owes something to the laborer other than what the laborer negotiated in the employment contract. This is a false presumption.

I presume no such thing. I am simply not equating the law and justness, and I am not equating the settlement of contractual negotiations with justness.

Whether someone is enslaved or forced to work is not the measure of justness. One can be unjustly treated without having been enslaved.

Not really.

In your opinion, o.k. In mine, they can. And there is no such thing as objective justness.

So long as the person is free to leave and seek other employment, he's consenting to the relationship, which makes it inherently just.

No, not inherently just. It makes it inherently agreed to.

Sure, if you accept a job to provide work for an hourly pay, then you have a contract to that extent. However, not all contracts are just, even those that weren't a result of force or slavery.

Yes, if you don't like the pay scale, you can find another job.
However, simply working for someone for pay does not mean that you do, in fact, "like" the pay scale. You could hate the pay scale, but merely continue there because you have no alternative and he could be accepting the salary despite the fact that he doesn't like it. Sure, a deal is a deal. But, don't confuse accepting a deal with "liking" the deal. Most of us have disliked a deal we've made.

Doesn't matter whether you like it or not.

Then why did you bring it up? I didn't bring it up. You did. I responded to your point. I agree. From the standpoint of whether I think a pay scale is just, it doesn't matter whether the employee likes it or not (except that if he does like it, I would think it likely that he feels it is just).[/quote]

Justice is not about your personal preferences or satisfaction,

Exactly my point. It's not about the employer's preference or satisfaction.

it's about whether the situation is fair to everyone involved, and if you accept the offer, then it's ipso facto fair.

No. Acceptance does not require fairness. One can be economically armtwisted into an unfair deal, and it is therefore unjust. However, whether it is unjust is an a subjective value judgment.

You said, "Just because YOU think you're worth more than the employer does means nothing, and particularly it does not make the wage you accept "unjust."" What do you mean it means "nothing?" It means something to the YOU in that sentence. And, the meaning ascribed to it by the YOU is no less objectively important than the employer's view of it. It may mean nothing TO THE EMPLOYER. There is no objective justness of a wage. Acceptance, however, is not the same as "liking" something and is not the same as "justness."

Yes, it's exactly that. A just wage is a wage that you accept after a free negotiation with your employer. Neither is coerced by the other, and the terms are accepted by both. That's just and fair.

[/quote]

Well, that's what you define it as, and you are free to do so. I don't, and most other people don't.

A just wage is, in my view, a wage that is fair under given circumstances. The definition of "just" in the dictionary is "guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness." A just wage is, therefore, a wage that is set according to truth, reason, justice and fairness. Nowhere in the definition of "just" does it say "acceptable" or "accepted" after a free negotiation (or otherwise).

[MrJonno]

An employer takes on a burden of care when they employ someone, thats a cost of employment every much as paying someone. That burden is defined by society via the state.
I use the government to negotiate for me boo hoo lot more employees than employers so as far as I'm concerned thats a good thing.

As for Seth not buying cars from government subsidised car makers well that makes sense government bailouts should be reserved for parasitical farmers than havent made any money in decades. Farming is probably the most communist industry in the entire western world

[Pappa]

Seth, unions and employment rights are not the same thing as socialism. Employment law and rights exist (mostly) to protect the employee from unfair mistreatment. That's not socialism. Unions exist to give employees a collective voice when negotiating with employers. That's not socialism either.

It certainly is socialism, particularly these days, when the major labor unions in the US and elsewhere are openly aligned with the Communist Party and the Socialist Worker's Party.

Millions of workers in the UK are members of unions, and almost all of them are just ordinary voters who support the main 3 parties or don't bother voting. Only a tiny fraction support the Communist Party and the Socialist Worker's Party. I've never seen anything that would suggest the case is different in the US either.

[Clinton Huxley]

The Tories? Pissing on the working class? Sucking the warty johnsons of the rich? Who'd have thought it?

[Rum]

Seth, unions and employment rights are not the same thing as socialism. Employment law and rights exist (mostly) to protect the employee from unfair mistreatment. That's not socialism. Unions exist to give employees a collective voice when negotiating with employers. That's not socialism either.

It certainly is socialism, particularly these days, when the major labor unions in the US and elsewhere are openly aligned with the Communist Party and the Socialist Worker's Party.

Millions of workers in the UK are members of unions, and almost all of them are just ordinary voters who support the main 3 parties or don't bother voting. Only a tiny fraction support the Communist Party and the Socialist Worker's Party. I've never seen anything that would suggest the case is different in the US either.

Yep. There's clearly something wrong with the all.