|
|
|
|
|
|
by NullInvictus
1140 days ago
|
|
|
> Our concern would be that a professional educator would not only work for the district, but the district would also be their landlord Employer: * we don't want to wages in an amount to let the worker afford healthcare on his own, so we'll just tie the worker's health-insurance to his job. * We don't want to pay wages in an amount that would let the worker afford housing on his own, so we'll tie the worker's housing to his job. * Next step: We don't want to pay wages in an amount to let the worker afford necessities on his own, so we'll create a company store where he'll be able to buy things with our new innovative wage/credit scheme that will tie necessities to his job. The implementation of this idea is terrible, one that will hold a further Damocles sword over the laborers, and if widely implemented, will absolutely be used against workers in future labor-disputes. We already have the history to show that. Your employer should not control your access to life-necessities. |
|
|