Do people have a right to work?

[Archbob]

Citizens of the USSR have the right to rest and leisure. This right is ensured by the establishment of a working week not exceeding 41 hours, for workers and other employees, a shorter working day in a number of trades and industries, and shorter hours for night work; by the provision of paid annual holidays, weekly days of rest, extension of the network of cultural, educational, and health-building institutions, and the development on a mass scale of sport, physical culture, and camping and tourism; by the provision of neighborhood recreational facilities, and of other opportunities for rational use of free time. The length of collective farmers' working and leisure time is established by their collective farms.

And thus the USSR eventually collapsed.

 

[GenMarshall]

And thus the USSR eventually collapsed.

How in the world did that caused the USSR to fall? Last I check they fell due to being in a race against the US along with shock therapy towards the start of the 90s.

 

[Hygro]

I voted other. I think society has an obligation to make sure its people get the opportunity to work if they so choose. But the main place to do that is a bottom up, market method, which is sort of the antithesis of a right to employment.

I'm a big fan of people creating their own jobs rather than seeking jobs from others. Corporations become largely inefficient as they grow big, anyway.

 

[Narz]

If people have a right to be employed who employs them?

If a person is repeatedly fired who must hire them?

Should technology be stifled to avoid replacing unskilled workers?

Saying people have "the right to employment" seems a bit like a platitude to me.

 

[amadeus]

How in the world did that caused the USSR to fall? Last I check they fell due to being in a race against the US along with shock therapy towards the end of the 90s.

Towards the end of the 90s, the USSR had already been dissolved for 7-8 years.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I voted other, because you have the right to any paid work you make for yourself, and any salary you can make from it.

But you don't have a right to be hired if nobody wants to hire you.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I voted other, because you have the right to any paid work you make for yourself, and any salary you can make from it.

But you don't have a right to be hired if nobody wants to hire you.

This is rather like saying you have a right to life until someone decides to kill you. Which isn't much of a "right" at all.

 

[GhostWriter16]

This is rather like saying you have a right to life until someone decides to kill you. Which isn't much of a "right" at all.

More like saying you have a right to not be killed, but you don't have a right to demand help surviving.

 

[Murky]

People have a right to work as much as they want. It's just up to them to find a way to get paid─enough to make a living─for it.

 

[ParkCungHee]

More like saying you have a right to not be killed, but you don't have a right to demand help surviving.

What if the only thing necessary to survive is access to the means of production? That is, the ability to work.

 

[bhsup]

For those that believe people have a right to work AND salary, you realize that means you believe that it is okay to force someone else to give that person a job and pay them. Y'all really okay with that? Cuz if you are, I'll be happy to force you to give me a job and pay me.

 

[galdre]

For those that believe people have a right to work AND salary, you realize that means you believe that it is okay to force someone else to give that person a job and pay them. Y'all really okay with that? Cuz if you are, I'll be happy to force you to give me a job and pay me.

this is where I see the problem

I agree with the concept (I think traitorfish put it well), but how would it be implemented?

 

[downtown]

If people have a right to be employed who employs them?

If a person is repeatedly fired who must hire them?

Should technology be stifled to avoid replacing unskilled workers?

Saying people have "the right to employment" seems a bit like a platitude to me.

Yeah, these are the important questions that the "right to work" crowd would need to address.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

If people have a right to be employed who employs them?

For those that believe people have a right to work AND salary, you realize that means you believe that it is okay to force someone else to give that person a job and pay them. Y'all really okay with that? Cuz if you are, I'll be happy to force you to give me a job and pay me.

There's a simple solution: the government.
Yes, there's a lot of people who would consider this heresy. I don't mean a full blown command economy where the government manufactures shoes and cars but rather a supplementary state run sector in fields that tend to create monopilies, are of vital importance or create strong externalities like resource extraction, transportation or infrastructure and possibly energy.
The right to work doesn't however mean there's a right to slack off at work and get paid. People who can't get a job in the private sector and end up in the state economy should be punished if they behave in a way that would normally get them fired.

 

[Narz]

Thinking about it creating employment for all might be less costly than prisons taken in the long view. Eliminate military interventionism & we could easily employ everyone at slightly above poverty wages.

I guess if employees act up they could go to jail & work from there.

 

[GenMarshall]

There's a simple solution: the government.
Yes, there's a lot of people who would consider this heresy. I don't mean a full blown command economy where the government manufactures shoes and cars but rather a supplementary state run sector in fields that tend to create monopilies, are of vital importance or create strong externalities like resource extraction, transportation or infrastructure and possibly energy.
The right to work doesn't however mean there's a right to slack off at work and get paid. People who can't get a job in the private sector and end up in the state economy should be punished if they behave in a way that would normally get them fired.

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy

 

[Murky]

I think having a "right to work" law that requires businesses to hire unemployed people would just open up a big can of worms. You just know business would come back and say that if they have to hire undesirable people, they want to pay them less have them only working part-time in some non-critical function. It also raises the question if people are required by law to work. What if someone has enough money that they just want to go on a year long vacation?

 

[Bill3000]

right to work laws caused a revolution in france
fyi

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I have the right to not be denied work based on the fact that I am a long term unemployed individual.

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy

Do you have a better solution ?

 

[Murky]

I have the right to not be denied work based on the fact that I am a long term unemployed individual. Bad enough there's a stigmata of being unemployed for a long time, what grinds my gears are the "Unemployed need not apply" signs.

This should fall under the equal opportunity rights not be discriminated against. I also spoke out before about using someone's credit rating against them. It needs to come down to a few questions. 1) Can you do the job? 2) Do you want the job? 3) Are you the best candidate for the job? Being unemployed or having a low credit rating should not be primary factors in hiring someone.