The left seems to want to put up as many barriers as they can when a company wants to hire an employee

[ksen]

Should the _employer_ be required to pay for _all_ of it, by law, whenever an employee is hired? That is the subject of the thread.

Are you going on record as saying yes, yes they should, for everything?

Someone has to pay for it. If your side won't let the government take some things off the plates of businesses, i.e. providing health insurance, retirement benefits, etc. then it will fall on business. That's the effect of obstruction from the Right, making businesses more responsible for costs that ought to be borne by society as a whole.

You acknowledge that this makes way more people unemployable for life and discourages hiring due to the expense and burden you place on employers whenever they want to hire someone? And you are OK with that?

I have acknowledged no such thing.

 

[Axulus]

And how does making employees way more expensive to hire do anything to contribute to their education and training?

You are right that it will contribute to their replacement with automation, but they don't magically become educated and productive by passing laws making it burdensome and expensive to hire them.

Of course not; You have to have the whole package - automation, productivity and taxation.

The problem is that the owners of the machines want to have the benefits without paying for them - they make more money by automating, but they don't want to pay any of it to support or train the workers they laid off.

It boils down to whether the economy is meant to serve only the wealthy, or to serve everyone.

That's just a choice - there is no physical constraint on one option or the other. As a society, we decide whether to be inclusive or exclusive. If wealthy people want to be greedy fucks and hoard all the goodies to the point that other people are starving or sleeping in the streets, then that's their call - but they should bear in mind that historically such situations have often ended with their heads no longer connected to their bodies.

The poor will do what they must to survive; The rich are better served by having an orderly and formal system to support the poor (ie taxation to fund welfare) than the alternative which is the transfer of wealth through crime (or even revolution), which is disorderly, highly inefficient, dirty, and dangerous.

Why is the only way for an economy to "serve everyone" is to make employees extremely expensive and burdensome to hire via endless reams of laws?

Are you sure there is no other way to do it? You know, having families, friends, communities, and when all else fails, some tax dollars to help those in need? The employer is the only one who can do it, huh?

 

[ksen]

Do you have a better way?

If so, let's hear it.

 

[Ford]

I just want to make sure I have this straight.

Leftist ideas that should be opposed are:

1) safe workplaces
2) clean environment
3) protections from discrimination
4) protections from harassment
5) protections from unlawful termination (so much for law abiding being a guiding principle)
6) unemployment benefits
7) minimum wage laws
8) 8 hour workdays
9) overtime
10) weekends
11) health insurance
12) retirement savings
13) paid time off
14) child bearing
15) caring for children
16) paying taxes
17) right to work
18) job training
19) transportation

I will accept that the Left is for all those things. Are you really arguing that the Right is against all those things and that society would be better without those things?

Should the _employer_ be required to pay for _all_ of it, by law, whenever an employee is hired? That is the subject of the thread.

So you don't feel the employer should be responsible for having a safe workplace?

You don't think that an employer should be expected to not dump toxic chemicals into the environment?

You think it is an unfair imposition upon business to expect them to not discriminate, harass, or otherwise abuse their employees?

You feel that there should be no restrictions upon how long an employer can compel an employee to work, no restrictions on how little they can pay, and that a requirement that they give employees time off is a horrible thing?


I think a better question here would be:


Is there any requirement or restriction or regulation upon employers you don't think is an undue burden?

 

[Axulus]

Someone has to pay for it. If your side won't let the government take some things off the plates of businesses, i.e. providing health insurance, retirement benefits, etc. then it will fall on business. That's the effect of obstruction from the Right, making businesses more responsible for costs that ought to be borne by society as a whole.

Hmm, are you actually saying there may be other options then having the employer pay for everything when they hire an employee, and that there might actually be a conversation to be had about it? You are the first person to acknowledge the possibility in this thread (which is what the conversation is about), so rep points to you.

I have acknowledged no such thing.

Then you are in denial of reality.

 

[Axulus]

Should the _employer_ be required to pay for _all_ of it, by law, whenever an employee is hired? That is the subject of the thread.

So you don't feel the employer should be responsible for having a safe workplace?

You don't think that an employer should be expected to not dump toxic chemicals into the environment?

You think it is an unfair imposition upon business to expect them to not discriminate, harass, or otherwise abuse their employees?

You feel that there should be no restrictions upon how long an employer can compel an employee to work, no restrictions on how little they can pay, and that a requirement that they give employees time off is a horrible thing?


I think a better question here would be:


Is there any requirement or restriction or regulation upon employers you don't think is an undue burden?

If we acknowledge that it may not be best to make it the employer's responsibility for _all_ of those things when they hire an employee, then we can have a conversation about each line item.

To answer your last question, they are all burdens and make employees more expensive to hire and thus discourages hiring, but the pros of any particular burden sometimes exceed the cons.

 

[bilby]

Of course not; You have to have the whole package - automation, productivity and taxation.

The problem is that the owners of the machines want to have the benefits without paying for them - they make more money by automating, but they don't want to pay any of it to support or train the workers they laid off.

It boils down to whether the economy is meant to serve only the wealthy, or to serve everyone.

That's just a choice - there is no physical constraint on one option or the other. As a society, we decide whether to be inclusive or exclusive. If wealthy people want to be greedy fucks and hoard all the goodies to the point that other people are starving or sleeping in the streets, then that's their call - but they should bear in mind that historically such situations have often ended with their heads no longer connected to their bodies.

The poor will do what they must to survive; The rich are better served by having an orderly and formal system to support the poor (ie taxation to fund welfare) than the alternative which is the transfer of wealth through crime (or even revolution), which is disorderly, highly inefficient, dirty, and dangerous.

Why is the only way for an economy to "serve everyone" is to make employees extremely expensive and burdensome to hire via endless reams of laws?

It isn't. Who said it was?

What I can say is that if employees are so cheap that they don't take home enough money to live on, then that does not lead to an economy that serves everyone. And in order to avoid that, it is better for everyone that the menial jobs be automated - and one good way to make that happen is to prohibit employment of people at wages so low they can even undercut robots. Of course, if the welfare system is sufficiently generous, prohibition becomes unnecessary - pay people $500 a week for doing nothing, and they will not accept a job at $7.50 an hour or less even in the absence of any legislated minimum wage.

You hardly need 'reams' of laws to establish a progressive tax system, a well funded training and education system, and a widely available welfare safety net.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fail.

You're not talking about the issue.

 

[ksen]

Hmm, are you actually saying there may be other options then having the employer pay for everything when they hire an employee, and that there might actually be a conversation to be had about it? You are the first person to acknowledge the possibility in this thread (which is what the conversation is about), so rep points to you.

I would love to have that conversation. A real conversation not just all of us trying to "gotcha" each other (the zingers can stay because sometimes those are pretty funny). I think it's pretty clear from the threads I post that there are quite a few things I think should not be the responsibility of business to provide.

I think government and business each has their place and there are things each one can do better than the other.

If you want to have that conversation I'll join you.

I have acknowledged no such thing.

Then you are in denial of reality.

Wouldn't be the first time buddy. :hug:

 

[bilby]

Fail.

You're not talking about the issue.

Fail.

You're not thinking about what I am saying.

 

[Axulus]

Do you have a better way?

If so, let's hear it.

It starts with families, then friends, then communities and nonprofit orgs and then finally government programs. The employee compensation and benefit package should be determined based on voluntary agreement between employee and employer with no laws interfering in the process. If this employment arrangement is not enough to allow for a minimum acceptable standard of living or enough time off, then we as a society are responsible for their provision.

Hiring an employee should be more like hiring a contractor and not like adopting a kid, a burdensome process that ends with a situation where every need and comfort is provided by the adoptive parents.

 

[ksen]

The employee compensation and benefit package should be determined based on voluntary agreement between employee and employer with no laws interfering in the process.

A reasonable goal. However, how do you address the vast power imbalance between employees and employers? Or does the power imbalance need addressing? Can you have a truly voluntary agreement from both sides if one side holds 50 cards of the deck?

 

[Ford]

If we acknowledge that it may not be best to make it the employer's responsibility for _all_ of those things when they hire an employee, then we can have a conversation about each line item.

You've already laid out your feelings on most of those in your OP.

Given your druthers, you feel an employer should not have to provide:

A safe workplace.
Compensation for injuries as a result of an unsafe workplace.
Protections against discrimination or harassment.
A minimum wage.
Vacations, family leave, sick leave, bereavement leave, or a limit to the number of hours that can be worked.
Health insurance or retirement benefits.


Basically you want to put all the power in the hands of the employers, with zero restrictions whatsoever on that power and no consequences for abuses because you (apparently) believe that a business owner is more or less incapable of abusing their employees.

Nothing - you seem to be saying - can or should compel a person who owns a business to comply with any rule.

 

[Axulus]

Why is the only way for an economy to "serve everyone" is to make employees extremely expensive and burdensome to hire via endless reams of laws?

It isn't. Who said it was?

What I can say is that if employees are so cheap that they don't take home enough money to live on, then that does not lead to an economy that serves everyone. And in order to avoid that, it is better for everyone that the menial jobs be automated - and one good way to make that happen is to prohibit employment of people at wages so low they can even undercut robots. Of course, if the welfare system is sufficiently generous, prohibition becomes unnecessary - pay people $500 a week for doing nothing, and they will not accept a job at $7.50 an hour or less even in the absence of any legislated minimum wage.

You hardly need 'reams' of laws to establish a progressive tax system, a well funded training and education system, and a widely available welfare safety net.

Just so I'm clear on your position, are you saying if that someone's level of skills and capability is such that they will not currently earn enough to support themselves in the employment market, then it is better that their job be taken over by automation and they be left unemployed and unemployable until they reach such a skill level?

Have you considered the possibility that they can develop skills and become more productive if they remain employed for a period of time, and the act of being employed may allow them to some day reach such a level?

 

[laughing dog]

Hiring an employee should be more like hiring a contractor and not like adopting a kid, a burdensome process that ends with a situation where every need and comfort is provided by the adoptive parents.

If you really think that current law makes hiring an employee more like adopting a child than hiring a contractor, then rational discussion is not possible.

 

[Axulus]

If we acknowledge that it may not be best to make it the employer's responsibility for _all_ of those things when they hire an employee, then we can have a conversation about each line item.

You've already laid out your feelings on most of those in your OP.

Given your druthers, you feel an employer should not have to provide:

A safe workplace.
Compensation for injuries as a result of an unsafe workplace.
Protections against discrimination or harassment.
A minimum wage.
Vacations, family leave, sick leave, bereavement leave, or a limit to the number of hours that can be worked.
Health insurance or retirement benefits.


Basically you want to put all the power in the hands of the employers, with zero restrictions whatsoever on that power and no consequences for abuses because you (apparently) believe that a business owner is more or less incapable of abusing their employees.

Nothing - you seem to be saying - can or should compel a person who owns a business to comply with any rule.

You seem to be unable to distinguish the mere statement of facts vs placing a value judgment on those facts. Honestly acknowledging that those things all place a burden and adds expense of hiring employees does _not_ mean that the burden exceeds the benefit for _every single line item_. All I have said is that the burden exceeds the benefit when you have all the items implemented on the list at the same time. You then take these plainly stated facts and then come up with a warped interpretation of them inside your head. You should really work on that.

 

[bilby]

It isn't. Who said it was?

What I can say is that if employees are so cheap that they don't take home enough money to live on, then that does not lead to an economy that serves everyone. And in order to avoid that, it is better for everyone that the menial jobs be automated - and one good way to make that happen is to prohibit employment of people at wages so low they can even undercut robots. Of course, if the welfare system is sufficiently generous, prohibition becomes unnecessary - pay people $500 a week for doing nothing, and they will not accept a job at $7.50 an hour or less even in the absence of any legislated minimum wage.

You hardly need 'reams' of laws to establish a progressive tax system, a well funded training and education system, and a widely available welfare safety net.

Just so I'm clear on your position, are you saying if that someone's level of skills and capability is such that they will not currently earn enough to support themselves in the employment market, then it is better that their job be taken over by automation and they be left unemployed and unemployable until they reach such a skill level?

Yes.

If they can't do anything useful, then why force them to do something useless?

Have you considered the possibility that they can develop skills and become more productive if they remain employed for a period of time, and the act of being employed may allow them to some day reach such a level?

Yes. And 'employment' whose primary purpose is training - eg an apprenticeship - is fine. But nobody learns much sweeping floors or screwing a hundred fasteners onto a hundred widgets every hour for eight hours on some assembly line. Get a robot to do it - or pay a decent wage for it in the unlikely event that that is cheaper than the robot.

 

[Ford]

You've already laid out your feelings on most of those in your OP.

Given your druthers, you feel an employer should not have to provide:

A safe workplace.
Compensation for injuries as a result of an unsafe workplace.
Protections against discrimination or harassment.
A minimum wage.
Vacations, family leave, sick leave, bereavement leave, or a limit to the number of hours that can be worked.
Health insurance or retirement benefits.


Basically you want to put all the power in the hands of the employers, with zero restrictions whatsoever on that power and no consequences for abuses because you (apparently) believe that a business owner is more or less incapable of abusing their employees.

Nothing - you seem to be saying - can or should compel a person who owns a business to comply with any rule.

You seem to be unable to distinguish the mere statement of facts vs placing a value judgment on those facts.

Well then help me out. You feel an employer should/should not be required to provide a safe workplace?


You want to go through these one by one, then let's start with that.

 

[Axulus]

Hiring an employee should be more like hiring a contractor and not like adopting a kid, a burdensome process that ends with a situation where every need and comfort is provided by the adoptive parents.

If you really think that current law makes hiring an employee more like adopting a child than hiring a contractor, then rational discussion is not possible.

Where did I say that it was such under current law? Hence the use of the words "should not". This thread is about the vision of many on the left. It is even in the title of the thread.

I agree, however, that it has swing too far in that direction under current law, not that it is indeed actually more like adopting a child compared to hiring a contractor at present.

It is an analogy used for illustrative purposes.

 

[Axulus]

You seem to be unable to distinguish the mere statement of facts vs placing a value judgment on those facts.

Well then help me out. You feel an employer should/should not be required to provide a safe workplace?


You want to go through these one by one, then let's start with that.

I support the concept of an employer being required to compensate employees for workplace injuries. You'd have a list of injury types and have a flat dollar fee compensation for that injury type as determined by case law (pain and suffering compensation), plus medical expenses, plus lost income, as a result of the injury. The employer would be required to have private insurance to cover it and the insurance companies would do a through review of the company to ensure the workplace was acceptably safe (and refuse coverage or significantly jack up rates until the issues were resolved), as the insurance company would be on the hook for paying out claims and would obviously want to minimize that.