Businesses do not have the obligation to create jobs for the sake of keeping people employed.
EU votes against freedom!!!!!
- Thread starter Mise
- Start date
Mise
isle of lucy
We have child support, Jazzmail 
Why do you insist on denying people the right to work if they want to? If people want to work 48 hours a week, that's fine, they can do that. If people want to work 60 hours a week, that's fine, they can do that too. Where's the problem? Why are you trying to stop people from earning a living?
Why do you insist on denying people the right to work if they want to? If people want to work 48 hours a week, that's fine, they can do that. If people want to work 60 hours a week, that's fine, they can do that too. Where's the problem? Why are you trying to stop people from earning a living?
Jazzmail
King
Good.We have child support, Jazzmail
A limit is good because it makes employable adults compete a little less against eachother and shift some of the burden to perform better to the employer.
If companies can have wage slaves, who barely make a living with long hours, they will. Lower wage costs will make it easier to compete.
So for competion to remain fair and make a higher standard possible, you will need a level playing field and laws that apply to all.
We have child support, Jazzmail
Why do you insist on denying people the right to work if they want to? If people want to work 48 hours a week, that's fine, they can do that. If people want to work 60 hours a week, that's fine, they can do that too. Where's the problem? Why are you trying to stop people from earning a living?
Presumably because after a certain point, it becomes objectively immoral to overwork. They don't want people to work themselves to death, or be exploited by their employers, voluntary or not.
I don't see how this is such a hard concept. We do not give people the freedom to not be free, choice or not.
Jazzmail
King
People who live in an area where all businesses pay $01.
Mise
isle of lucy
I don't follow your logic. Perhaps it's the language barrier. Can you clarify please?
What do you mean by "burden to perform" (who's performance, what does "burden" mean in this context?) "lower wage cost" (how will the EU directive result in lower wage costs?), "easier to compete" (for who?), "competition" (between workers? or between employers?)?
Who'd live in an area where businesses pay not even subsistence wages?
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
Ideally thats the case and yeah i'd agree with you. Thing is most employers don't even bother giving the employee the peice of paper relating to the directive, and some will no doubt pressure you into working more whether you relaly want to or not.
I.e. 'You won't work longer than 48 hours? Well this person will so they get your job!'
Mise
isle of lucy
We already have labour laws to prevent exploitation.
And I don't think you'd die from working 49 hours a week
Most people in my office work 50-60 hour weeks.Isn't that how the labor market should be? I mean, I'm obviously going to hire the person that's going to help my business the most, aren't I?
Because they can't afford to move?
Why do people not emigrate from Zimbabwe?
Then it's just the matter of how much.
"Why do you insist on denying people the right to work if they want to? If people want to work 100 hours a week, that's fine, they can do that. If people want to work 140 hours a week, that's fine, they can do that too. Where's the problem? Why are you trying to stop people from earning a living?"
You know the answer why, you just disagree on how much is required for it to count as worker exploitation. I'm not agreeing with him, just explaining the concept.
I don't know if you ever saw Dumb and Dumber but it reminds me of a quote from when Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels are looking for a job:We already have labour laws to prevent exploitation.
And I don't think you'd die from working 49 hours a week
Daniels: I can't believe we drove around all day, and there's not a single job in this town. There is nothing, nada, zip.
Carrey: Yeah, unless you want to work 40 hours a week. *scoffs*
Mise
isle of lucy
Well, if employers already shirk the EU directive, I don't see why they won't continue to do so, regardless of what's voted in Brussels.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
There's a line between whats best for the buisness and exploitation. I think making someone reguarly work over 48 hours a week is expoloitation.
In that case, why wouldn't another business set up shop there and pay more than that?
Actually, they do.Bill3000 said:
3 million strong and growing!
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
Well if it's enshrined in law that no one can work more than 48 hours for an employer, the problem is eliminated anyway.
It's not exploitation; you're volunteering your time in exchange for payment. If my boss wanted me to work more than 40 hours a week, I'd tell him to go stuff it and find another job. It's really as easy as that.
Well, then what if you want to work more than 48 hours a week? Let's say you've got a job you find fulfilling and you've got no family? What if your job pays well and you want to be better off?
'cuz they can't afford it or want to maximize profits? If everyone's giving crap wages, and an ample workforce is working for that amount, what incentive does an owner of a business have in creating higher wages?
That would work only if there are better choices, and this isn't always true.
Actually, they do.
3 million strong and growing!
What's the population of Zimbabwe again? How many are not emigrating?
Mise
isle of lucy
If people want to 100 hours, 140 hours or 168 hours, it's none of my business. If, however, a significant number of people are regularly working 100 hours a week, then our economy has serious structural problems that I would seek to address directly. Mandating any kind of limit on how long people should be allowed to work will not address those problems. It's tackling the symptoms, not the disease. The concept is flawed, for this reason.
