Are you suggesting that line workers have the capability to define their own jobs?
The conversation here is about people that take these moderation jobs (pick any of a dozen reasons) are getting shafted compared to the duties required.
Admittedly this is an attempt to shape their circumstances, but it's not in keeping with the way corporations work to suggest that workers can just say no.
Line workers can switch jobs if they are unhappy with the conditions. If everybody would do that, companies would be forced to make those jobs more attractive to retain and compete for workers.
"Love it or leave it" means there is no room for discussion. It can also be considered a veiled threat especially given its historical use.
It's a false dichotomy. I already told you, you don't live in a capitalist system. You live in a hybrid system where all markets and contracts are already regulated.
If you believe otherwise, try ignoring labor laws. Try ignoring OSHA. Try ignoring EPA. Try getting someone to sign an indentured servitude contract. You'll quickly learn that the world isn't that simple.
The argument "we already have all those rules" is not really useful. Apparently the treatment of the Facebook Content Moderators is also legal. So by your logic, it is OK, because we already have those rules.
I don't know why you think "love it or leave it" is a veiled threat. What historical use are you referring to? Of course it is abbreviated. You can negotiate with your boss if you are unhappy. But ultimately, nobody owes you anything. Yes, there are the labor laws and so on, but I think if somebody decides to shut down their company, you can not really sue them for your job anymore.
The conversation here is about people that take these moderation jobs (pick any of a dozen reasons) are getting shafted compared to the duties required.
Admittedly this is an attempt to shape their circumstances, but it's not in keeping with the way corporations work to suggest that workers can just say no.