|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
patongpanda
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Personally, I vote no. I'm strongly against the use of coercion. Besides, give the rabble an inch and they'll take a foot, and soon you won't have a leg to stand on.
If "British workers were being "undercut" by cheap labour from other parts of the EU" then this suggests:
(a) employers are greedy
(b) the price of British labor is higher than employers, given the choice, are prepared to pay
(c) both (a) and (b)
My view is that policies such as minimum wage raise the price of labor to an artificially-high level and this hurts the workers the most, as we see here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| I'm strongly against the use of coercion. |
So you'd also be against a company demanding its workers comply with company policy or face dismissal? That is, after all, also a form of coercion.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| (b) the price of British labor is higher than employers, given the choice, are prepared to pay |
Any level of pay is higher than employers, if given the choice, are prepared to pay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| So you'd also be against a company demanding its workers comply with company policy or face dismissal? That is, after all, also a form of coercion. |
The "coercion" you cite is, at bottom, an elementary property right. I can ask a person to leave my property - work or home - for any reason I see fit (or for no reason). Employment laws that permit an employer to "coerce" an employee to comply with company policy or face dismissal are, I should think, a reflection of this basic right that is the hallmark of a civilized society
| Fox wrote: |
| Any level of pay is higher than employers, if given the choice, are prepared to pay. |
And what conclusion do you personally draw from this observation, Fox? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Any level of pay is higher than employers, if given the choice, are prepared to pay. |
And what conclusion do you personally draw from this observation, Fox? |
That child slavery would soon be back in vogue, if enough deregulation would have it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| So you'd also be against a company demanding its workers comply with company policy or face dismissal? That is, after all, also a form of coercion. |
The "coercion" you cite is, at bottom, an elementary property right. I can ask a person to leave my property - work or home - for any reason I see fit (or for no reason). Employment laws that permit an employer to "coerce" an employee to comply with company policy or face dismissal are, I should think, a reflection of this basic right that is the hallmark of a civilized society |
So a companying saying to its workers, "Comply or you can't work for us," is a hallmark of civilized society, but workers saying to their employer, "Comply or we won't work for you," is not? As you rightly point out, you can ask a person to leave your property for any reason you see fit. Likewise, in a non-slave holding society, workers can choose not to labor in the service of others for any reason we see fit.
In short, I agree with your characterization of the employer's actions: it comes down to a property right. It just so happens the striking worker's actions also comes down to a property right as regards one's own labor.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Any level of pay is higher than employers, if given the choice, are prepared to pay. |
And what conclusion do you personally draw from this observation, Fox? |
That what employers will choose to do, if given the choice is, not always the best means of determining what is just or reasonable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChopChaeJoe
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Freedom of choice across the board. I say let 'em. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big Bird wrote: |
| That child slavery would soon be back in vogue, if enough deregulation would have it. |
People would have to be on the brink of starvation as to send their children out to work. Otherwise there's no market for it. If people are that desperate, however, and child labor is the only alternative to starvation.....
| Fox wrote: |
So a companying saying to its workers, "Comply or you can't work for us," is a hallmark of civilized society, but workers saying to their employer, "Comply or we won't work for you," is not? As you rightly point out, you can ask a person to leave your property for any reason you see fit. Likewise, in a non-slave holding society, workers can choose not to labor in the service of others for any reason we see fit.
In short, I agree with your characterization of the employer's actions: it comes down to a property right. It just so happens the striking worker's actions also comes down to a property right as regards one's own labor.
|
Of course, I absolutely agree, but you have changed the subject from wildcat strikes to workers being able to choose where they are employed, which I don't think any reasonable person disputes.
| Fox wrote: |
That what employers will choose to do, if given the choice is, not always the best means of determining what is just or reasonable. |
I think the prices of things - labor, milk, bread or whatever - should be determined by nothing other than what is acceptable to the parties directly involved. That was the conclusion I drew from your earlier question...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
patongpanda
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does the free market even apply to natural monopolies like the power industry?
It's not like we can shop around for suppliers.
The Government creates an artificial "marketplace" and puts in a place a regulator, effectively price fixing. We arrive via a convoluted system pretty much back where we started but with less control and less transparency than if the power industry was in the public ownership. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
