[ClumsyPilot]

"All those things should actually be under the purview of the government, rather than businesses."

How does this make sence - are we meant to move you on government payroll for the 1 week you have the flu and can't work? Should the government pay for your annual leave?

[lotsofpulp]

Sort of, although the most efficient and effective implementation in my opinion would basically result in a universal basic income.

[ClumsyPilot]

Even with a real UBI system, having random fluctuations in earnings when you get a cold or break a leg is not reasonable.

Additionally, this idea will incentivise employers to destroy human capital - like an employer could drive their employees to burnout and then discard them because they bear no consequences.

This is already happening to a large extent thanks to gig economy- Uk employers have cut their investments in staff training by 2.4 billion since 2011.

[nybble41]

> Even with a real UBI system, having random fluctuations in earnings when you get a cold or break a leg is not reasonable.

You should have enough savings set aside that going without a paycheck for at least a week or two won't put you in dire straits—the official recommendation is actually several months. Anyone who is self-employed is already managing their own (unpaid) vacation time and medical leave. It is the expectation that income is guaranteed even when you aren't working—that you can safely live paycheck-to-paycheck without planning for the future—which is unreasonable.

UBI doesn't really count as "planning for the future" unless it's somehow contractually guaranteed for life and not subject to being curtailed as a result of shifting politics. A social program instituted with the passing of a bill can be limited or revoked in the same way at any time. If the goal is to ensure a predictable income stream then a fully-funded, non-revocable trust or annuity for the benefit of a specific person is a much more stable option.

> … like an employer could drive their employees to burnout and then discard them because they bear no consequences.

Just assume that an employer will take whatever an employee is willing to give regardless. It's the employees' responsibility to push back and manage their own work-life balance. It would be unreasonable (as in: an obvious conflict-of-interest) to expect employers to prioritize employees' welfare over their own.

[ClumsyPilot]

"Just assume that an employer will take whatever an employee is willing to give regardless. It's the employees' responsibility to push back and manage their own work-life balance."

We have tried 'maximum capitalism' experiment in the 1800's: it gave us children in coal mines working 10 hours a day and dying of blacklung. It gave us people in workhouses losing their hands because the steam press malfunctioned and then starving to death because they have no way to support themselves.

Do you want goid old days back, or do you have good reason to believe it will be different this time?

[nybble41]

You are describing corporatism, not capitalism. It is not "maximum capitalism" to always side with the employer in any dispute, ignoring the natural rights of the employee. If the employer causes harm to an employee, deliberately or through negligence, then the employer must make the victim whole. Non-aggression and strict liability for any harm done to others are integral aspects of a capitalist society. Employees have their own responsibilities, of course. If they knowingly take risks in pursuit of better pay then they ought to bear the consequences—the employer is not always at fault. This is a natural consequence of having the freedom to make your own choices.

[lotsofpulp]

Why would they be able to drive the employee to burnout if the employee can quit since they have UBI?