[unethical_ban]

>2) Do you not see the flaw in the logic of “something worked before, so we should keep doing it regardless of changing circumstances.”

Do you not see the flaw in the logic "Something is imperfect, therefore discard it"?

I work at one of the most rewarding (financially) Information Security employers in the country, I believe, and I enjoy most parts of my job. Does that mean I should not be allowed to coordinate with my coworkers on fair pay and overtime conditions? At what point should I "suck it up" and who gets to say?

[baron816]

>Does that mean I should not be allowed to coordinate with my coworkers

Companies aren’t allowed to coordinate together to get what they consider to be “fair” prices. I think it’s crazy that you actually are, because it’s everyone else that loses out because of your collusion.

[coliveira]

A company already coordinates the salary of all their workers. It is only fair that workers also be allowed to look out for their collective interests.

[unethical_ban]

See my response to stickfigure. The relationship is not balanced.

[stickfigure]

You're somebody I pay for a job done. You could leave me at any time if somebody else offers you more money, and, statistically, you're probably going to in about 2 years. You don't even have to give me 2 week's notice; that's just a courtesy.

Employment is a voluntary relationship between two people. Sounds like you're trying to make it voluntary for you but not me.

[unethical_ban]

Just like we have a progressive tax structure, I believe most regulations regarding corporate obligations should be progressive.

Your decision to callously let one employee go, when your pre-tax income is $1,000,000,000, is negligible. The impact to that person is the security of their family and future.

Maybe if your PTI is $100,000, and you're a local startup or a bar, or a small MSP, it's more reasonable that you need flexibility in staffing and can't support any "slack" in employee output.

But yes, it is absolutely asymmetrical, to the benefit of the party that has the power to withstand ending the relationship more. Which one is that?

[conanbatt]

> Your decision to callously let one employee go, when your pre-tax income is $1,000,000,000, is negligible. The impact to that person is the security of their family and future.

This is such a spurious comparison. First, it compares the workers wealth to the employer's wealth in an attempt to make a redistributive argument.

Making it hard to fire people is not the way to tax the wealthy to help the less wealthy. There are much better measures for that.

The second is that it conflates what you think is right as a narrator of the argument but with other people's money. It's always so easy to make other people pay for things you believe in!

[cortesoft]

You know, I agree with you to an extent, and for certain people who work certain jobs, I think this logic makes sense. If you are a person with the skills in a field that is highly competitive, you can probably get a new job as soon as you decide to leave the previous one.

But for most people, this is not true; it might take anywhere from months to years to find a new job. Now, you can easily argue that this is the same for employers, and I would agree that you are correct; it can take months to years for an employer to find someone capable of doing a job.

So, it might logically seem like both parties are making an even trade, with equal risk for both. Either side can walk away from the deal at any time, and both sides have the risk of taking a while to find a replacement for the other.

However, if you think about it more, you see why the employer has a huge advantage over the employee, and why I think it is a bit simplistic to just say 'both sides enter and leave the agreement voluntarily, so we don't need any protections for anyone'

When a person loses their job, they are losing 100% of their earning power. That has a HUGE effect on the quality of life for that person. On the other hand, a company is only losing 1/n of their productive capacity. Even if you assume the person is worth 10 other people, any decently sized company is going to be able to absorb the loss pretty easily.

Now, I am not saying that we need super strict worker protections, but I don't think we can just wave away the concerns about the power imbalance between workers and employers.

Personally, I think good unemployment benefits is probably the best mitigation that maintains everyone's freedom while still mitigating the power imbalance somewhat.

[Eridrus]

Personally, I am massively in favor of providing things like unemployment benefits through the state, rather than unions.

[acct1771]

From another perspective, it sounds like you're trying to stop other workers from telling you to get bent if you treat their colleagues improperly! :)

[darpa_escapee]

You're aware that firms voluntarily sign contracts with unions, correct?

You are also misrepresenting the power imbalance a single worker who needs to eat has against a multibillion dollar company or industry.

Unions try to correct the power imbalance between labor and capital.

Edit: was beaten by a more elegant response 15min ago.