You will what?
There are other ways to have something like worker’s compensation, you know. For example, medical and/or disability insurance can cover workplace injuries (if they’re “serious enough”).
The very term “worker’s compensation”, taken at its root, refers to paying for damages inflicted upon workers. But that implies a tort - at the very least, negligence. That raises up again the whole issue of what constitutes negligence or any other tort by an employer against an employee.
Worker’s comp has proven more successful than just hoping those alone will be enough. I like having a safe workplace and I like my comp.
I’m not a lawyer, but I think worker’s comp involves a tort of negligence.
The rest has to be determined case by case.
This is certainly isn’t going to win me many points in a manner of speaking but I really don’t care at the moment. Autolykos, why even bother arguing with Mustang when it’s obvious that he doesn’t actually endorse worker’s comp in the case of fraud. You then argue over what he considers fraud. The reason that libertarians are so hated by the majority of people is for exactly this reason. Always debating and trying to verbally corner the “opponent”. For the love of freedom I wish my fellow libertarians would work on their rhetoric.
Aren’t there any libertarians who support comp, anyway? I know some support environmental tort.
It wasn’t obvious to me - not at first, and not for a while afterwards. What made you think it was obvious from the get-go?
Yes, and why do you think I shouldn’t?
What do you think is wrong with debating people? That’s what I’m here to do in this forum - debate.
You mean it’s proven more successful to you. You can’t escape subjective value judgements here, no matter how hard you try.
But I’m not surprised that you’d like someone else always footing the bill. After all, who wouldn’t like that?
Aha, so here we actually have some common ground for once. It might surprise you to hear that I also think employers should pay compensation for damages incurred by employees should those employers be found to be negligent (or worse). So then our dispute is over what constitutes negligence.
I’d like it.
There’s things like OSHA and union protections too, but okay, we can talk.
I would say that any injury that didn’t result from employee fraud would constitute employer negligence. I don’t think this is a very practictical reason to deny the plaintiff comp, since it involves judging the employee’s intentions. But however comp works now seems to be effective.
Scenerio: An employee is working in a high-noise level environment. The employer informs the employee that there are dangerous levels of noise in the environment, posts signs, and provides free ear plugs to workers entering the environment. However the employee chooses not to wear the earplugs because they find them uncomfortable or too much of a hassle in the present, with no intent to commit fraud. They later suffer hearing damage. How is th employer negligent?
@ Autolykos
I suppose it wouldn’t be obvious to you. The reason I considered it obvious is because do you really think Mustang is so stupid as to say that a person who is outright committing fraud to get worker’s comp, is actually entitled to worker’s comp? I mean it would take some extremely twisted thought processes to say that the guy who chops his fingers off on purpose deserves worker’s comp.
You may believe that debate will actually win people over to the side of freedom but how many times has that worked for you? How many times has a debate with a Statist ended with the Statist joining our side? How many times did they at least become sympathetic to our cause after a debate? When someone challenges your point of view in front of dozens of people how does it really make you feel? Because for most people when that happens their defenses go up and they become more concerned with defending their current views than thinking about if the other person has a point.
In rhetoric there is a concept called ethos. Ethics. I haven’t watched the videos which Mustang linked to because I have no doubt that they are as biased as humanly possible, problem is that they are probably effective in invoking sympathy. Want to know how those Leftists always seem to win? Because they are excellent when it comes to rhetoric, they don’t waste serious time in trying to persuade people by using economics, they appeal to emotions because that is what most people actually respond to. Do you care about just debating or do you care about persuading people? That is the question libertarians should ask themselves when they are about to get in a “debate”.
Serpentis-Lucis, if a person is employing logical fallacies in order to persuade people, then I don’t care how good his rhetoric is - I’ll consider him dishonest.
Under my basic definition, the employer would be negligent. Plus, the evidence might largely be based on hearsay and I would give the benefit of the doubt to the employee.
Looking at the regular definition of negligence applied in worker’s comp, It’s hard to say, especially if not all the facts are known. But I’ll assume that they are known. Technically, then, the employee is in the wrong if he files a suit. But in practice, when the evidence is unknown, it’s better in practice if the employer just makes hearing protection mandatory on the noisy parts of the premises (which would obviate the need for the lawsuit and injury in the first place).
We’re talking about a non-commercial radio station. If the facts they present sound miserable, that’s because that was the state of working conditions before worker’s comp and the Wagner Act.
Of course you would - that’s my point. Apparently you’re an ethical egoist in the sense of “what I want is always right”. That kind of ethical reasoning is next-of-kin to psychopathy.
So what would you consider to be employee fraud? None of this “I know it when I see it” nonsense, please.
Right, because your basic definition considers only two things: 1) whether the injury is sustained at the workplace, and 2) whether “employee fraud” (yet to be defined) was committed. That definition is self-serving, by the way, as it’s obvious to me that your goal is to force employers to pay for pretty much any injury sustained at the workplace. But why employers and not, say, the government? Or would you really care either way, as long as the injured employee doesn’t have to foot any part of the bill (above and beyond the taxes taken from him)?
When you say “[make] hearing protection mandatory”, do you mean having a policy that any employee not wearing hearing protection on the noisy parts of the premises will be summarily dismissed? Or what? Either way, I’ll point out that under your own definition of “negligence”, such a policy would make no difference - the employer would have to pay for basically any hearing damage suffered by employees if they ignore the policy.
That’s a non sequitur - whether a radio station is commercial has nothing necessarily to do with any bias it may have.
I guess that’s it for that, then.
Because the measure is supposed to be a deterrent to the employer.
Simply that the employee is not allowed into a part of the facility without wearing hearing protection.
But okay, I can allow exentuating circumstances if the employer provides safety equipment and the employee doesn’t use it.
So now you’re refusing to provide a definition for “employee fraud”? Do you understand that this invalidates your definition of “employer negligence”, as you’ve stated that term depends in part on “employee fraud”?
Let me guess - a deterrent against any workplace injuries whatsoever? Tell me, is it really possible to have 100% safety? What does “100% safety” even mean?
Okay, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that no employee will ever enter that part of the facility without wearing hearing protection.
Why the change of heart here? And do you see this as a negotiation or something?
I gave my definition. If you want more information, I’ll go by however worker’s comp law works.
Nope, and I’m sure there are going to be unjustified cases of it like in any other law.
Because if there really is written evidence that OSHA safety notices were put up or the employee or said, “hey, I’m going to be a moron and not use readily available safety equipment”, then the employer did what he could to help.
I’ll take that as a yes - you do understand that this invalidates your definition of “employer negligence”, since you’ve stated that term depends in part on “employee fraud”, which is a term you refuse to define (“I know it when I see it” doesn’t constitute an intelligible definition). Thanks for playing, better luck next time.
So then what do you think must be deterred?
Keep in mind that the context of our discussion is not limited to the law as currently written. I will rebuff any and all attempts to make the context that narrow. Do you understand?
Referring specifically to OSHA is another attempt to narrow the context. I reject that attempt.
Now then, if the employer simply warned the employee of the saftey hazards involved, why wouldn’t you say then that the employer did what he could to help?
Employers turning workplaces into some 19th century piece of shit.
Of course not.
No, not if he didn’t attempt to eliminate the safety hazards.