[colejohnson66]

At least in America, a good portion of it is a cultural difference. The EU tends to take worker protections more seriously without considering collateral damage (according to some). OTOH, America just does nothing because there’s an entire political party who’s big premise is “any and all regulation is bad regulation.”

[tcldr]

Another way of saying 'The EU tends to take worker protections more seriously without considering collateral damage' is 'The US tends to take corporate protections more seriously without considering collateral damage'.

[nescioquid]

>> ...there’s an entire political party who’s big premise is “any and all regulation is bad regulation.”

In fact, since Clinton took the Democratic party in a Neo-liberal direction (and made Reagan's dream of NAFTA a reality, "reformed" welfare, and the Glass-Steagall deregulation) I'm under the impression we have two such parties.

[claudeganon]

There's a bipartisan consensus that working people should be screwed. Uber's c-suite is staffed by Democratic Party insiders and they just got Prop 22 passed, Democratic leaders just came out in support of a stimulus bill that indemnifies companies against COVID-related harms they place their employees in to keep making money. You can find no shortage of well-paid liberals on this site that will tell you that unions are the scourge of the earth, despite their political influence being responsible for just about everything that makes the EU a better place for workers.

[colejohnson66]

I’m not denying that there are Democrats who support business over workers. All I said was that the Republican Party (in Congress) seems to believe that any and all is bad while Democrats believe in some or more (depending on how you feel).

It also doesn’t help that people want to label everyone so much to fit into just two categories. Feinstein (D-CA) is very pro-surveillance while some of the party (in congress) believes otherwise. Romney (R-UT) voted to convict Trump while every other Republican voted to acquit.

I’ll admit it is a bit hypocritical of me to lump all Republicans together, so I’ll clarify with: it’s where the party (in congress) seems to be heading (or already is). Obviously not all Republicans support that idea.

[claudeganon]

The beliefs of individual members of the Democratic Party are largely irrelevant compared to how they function collectively as a political body at both the state and national level. With that view, they've been definitively anti-worker since the Clinton era and have been shifting further and further right since Reagan's presidency.

The obstacle to change in this country is not the Republican party, but Democrats who use them as an excuse to mask their similar, steadfast allegiance to business interests at the expense of everyone besides white collar workers.

[lotsofpulp]

Basically every state that has a semblance of worker protections is led by Democrats. They aren’t perfect, but the problem isn’t mostly Democrats, who at the federal level can’t get anything done without support from Republicans, who are far from making worker protections any part of their initiatives.

It’s funny how federal government employees got paid parental leave though, but no legislation for non government employees was brought to the floor.

[claudeganon]

California is controlled top-to-bottom by Democrats and still has remarkably poor worker protections by the standard of any other developed country and is even worse when you compare things like the state of housing, poverty, and healthcare. They have tremendous latitude to make better conditions for workers and yet somehow this never pans out in California or other "blue" states. At what point do these excuses wear thin?

[lotsofpulp]

How is California supposed to do that if other states don't? Businesses would quickly move to other states if the tax difference became too high.

The only reason California can get away with the worker protections it has is because of its uniquely favorable weather, geography, productive land, and other resources.

No state can offer taxpayer funded healthcare, because then the people receiving more from healthcare than paying in will start to increase and the people paying in more than they receive will start to leave. It's the same problem for pretty much all other minimum standards of living, and the same one that exists between people in cheaper US states complaining about China and Mexico taking all their jobs.