Emotionally loaded language aside, I have two questions. First, why do you think that employers will necessarily revert workplaces back to “conditions in the 19th century” if they’re not forced to pay for pretty much any injuries sustained at their workplaces? (I put “conditions in the 19th century” in quotes because the 19th century was 100 years, and I seriously doubt that workplace conditions remained static over such a long period of time.) Second, why do you think that must be deterred in the first place?
Are you saying you don’t understand what I said? Or are you saying that of course the context of our discussion is not limited to the law as currently written?
The question I asked was a why question. I’ll be gracious enough to repeat it for you: if the employer simply warned the employee of the safety hazards involved, why wouldn’t you say then that the mployer did what he could to help?
Workplaces are less safe when employers aren’t accountable, and worker’s comp reduced accidents when it was introduced. So I wouldn’t want to go back to the period before then.
Because not getting frozen to death working in a meat plant is nice.
I’m saying that the discussion includes both current law and our proposals.
I am saying that he didn’t completely or at least mostly eliminate the safety hazards. Wearing hearing protection, if it does largely eliminate safety risks, shows at least an effort on the employer’s part to eliminate these risks.
Obviously, “largely” is subjective and is going to have to be decided case by case. If you can’t accept that idea, then I don’t know what else to say.
I see that you’re trying to get me to admit that workplace safety is a made up word and employees choose the jobs that they do and employers have no say in what work employees do. If that’s your opinion, great, let’s end the discussion. Otherwise, I support worker’s comp because I think it makes workplaces safer for me and most other workers. If you think that that’s an unjustified use of force, I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t care.
Why do you assume, mustang, that employers would not be accountable for the safety of their employees? It is in the best interest of the employer to create safe working situations. If even one meat packing plant decides that they want to make their factory more safe for work, workers will flock to that factory, leaving other more unsafe factories with deficient resources (ceteris paribus), or creating a need for a peaceful union. These safety precautions result in the business running better and more smoothly, which raises the profit-loss ratio for the employer. Competition drives up the standard of living, in general. Do you understand what competition between businesses is, and the implications of that competition?
I think you’re uncomfortable with the idea of self-ownership and personal responsibility. If you can show me how personal responsibility and self-ownership apply to your idea of a worker in the worker-employer relationship, I’ll fold my cards.
I don’t assume. We know how things were before these regulations.
I don’t think we’ll be able to agree on everything. But I believe that workers should have some ownership of the things they produce and contribute to. Until they’re granted shared ownership of their workplaces according to what they’ve contributed to sustaining it, worker’s comp gives them some protection against how employers decide to run it.
I’m saying that the discussion is about principles, so what the current law says is irrelevant.
So the employee is not responsible for risks he’s willing to take? By that reasoning, I wouldn’t be responsible for my own death if I was unlucky in a round of Russian roulette. Or are you resorting to special pleading here?
Aside from that, who do you think is competent to judge whether the safety hazards have been eliminated? Indeed, who do you think is competent to figure out just what the safety hazards are, if any? Finally, why must safety hazards be eliminated?
Well, you can tell me just why you accept the notion of “I know it when I see it” so readily in this context, because I’m really at a loss to understand that. It sounds like a cop-out to me.
I’m not sure what you mean by “employers have no say in what work employees do”. But my point has basically been to point out your logical fallacies, as well as your hypocrisy, double standards, and special pleading (but I repeat myself). If you want to be a hypocrite, well, that’s up to you - I can’t make you want otherwise. Still, it seems that most people don’t want to be hypocrites, so you might have some cognitive dissonance to deal with. Then again, maybe you’re used to that.
On what basis do you believe that workers should have some ownership of the things they produce and contribute to? I’m guessing some kind of labor theory of value, but I could be wrong.
The history of worker’s comp is meant as evidence, not conclusive proof. If you want to disregard that evidence, okay. I’d appreciate some kind of counter-evidence, though.
To some degree, yeah, if it’s a choice between doing what the boss says and unemployment. As for Russian Roulette, I guess that would be your fault, unless you were faced with something like the decision between losing your job and putting yourself at risk.
A judge.
I can see that you’re trying to win something here by ignoring context clues, or maybe even being genuinely unable to communicate with a human being.
Back to my fallacy of composition (?) 19th century meat packing plant statement. I don’t expect safety hazards to be eliminated. Just reduced.
Far as I can tell, I haven’t been inconsistent, besides perhaps clarifying that judges should enforce the spirit of the law, and be conscious of exentuating circumstances and fraud. I’m not just talking about principles. I’m talking about applying them into law when the facts are unclear and evidence may not be complete.
Sure, but that will take some time for me to look up.
So you’re resorting to special pleading. Thanks for making that clear.
What do you think makes him qualified?
No, I’m questioning the implicit assumptions you’re bringing in. Can you address that or not?
You do understand what the fallacy of composition is, don’t you?
By how much do you expect safety hazards to be reduced?
You’re not even talking about principles, as far as I’m concerned, because you haven’t yet established just what your principles are. So how can you logically talk about applying your principles into law etc. when your principles are incomplete at best? That’s certainly one area, at least, where you’ve been inconsistent.
Yep, and you could call any statement I make that isn’t completely in line with some moral absolutist position a “special plea”.
His law school plaque. Lawyers aren’t that bright, but they’re probably better than some random redneck-off-the-street. Why do I trust judges, then? Well, unfortunately, society needs to pick someone to run its legal system and studying law is the best education anyone seems to have developed for filling that role effectively.
I can, and you’re the one ignoring my implicit assumptions, Picard. The “how much” question is what you should be asking.
By enough to justify whatever inefficiency the regulation causes. I’ll trade some fraction of a percent loss of wages from legal fees for comp protection if that’s how it has to work.
For the purposes of this argument you can call me a utilitarian. Want more specifics? Well, I’ll answer.
If the regulations were passed into law, wouldn’t that mean that a majority or at least a very large number of people were pushing for those regulations? With so many people wanting the safer conditions then it seems like they would have gotten the safer conditions even without the help of government. Seems like the only reason the government got involved is so that they could take responsibility for enforcing the regulations and implementing future regulations, most likely the powerful interests that the Left hates so much are responsible for it, they allowed a compromise where the proletariat supposedly benefitted the most. I used the word supposedly because in actuality the people in power (This includes the corporate leaders), were put in a position where they control the people who are putting the regulations into law and enforcing them. Allowing them to be able to crush their smaller competition under the weight of regulation, allowing them to first approve of any regulation before it is passed, and allowing them to alter the regulations in such a way as to make sure it never actually effects them severely. This would give the powerful corporate interests a position of power in all future negotiations over regulations. Leading me to believe that conditions might be better if the government (by way of large corporate interests) hadn’t meddled with regulations.
Unfortunately, there was a huge labor movement fighting for labor reforms including things like safer conditions and an eight hour day that never accomplished their goal until the federal government did something. Workers don’t have complete control over what their workplaces are like. They have to take the work offered to put food on the table.
Maybe, but the evidence of how employers reacted to these regulations does suggest they had a major impact on workplace conditions. This was brought up earlier in the thread.
Hmm, perhaps you’re right. I just find it hard to believe that they managed to get enough leverage, to get the federal government to pass the regulations into law, yet they weren’t able to do so without the government’s help. I’ll give it more thought.
if enough people really wanted the change, if they all had quit working for employers with conditions they disagreed with, and their was profit to be made in that industry, the employer would have either improved conditions to gain the workers back or been ultimately forced out of business by an entrepreneur that would improve the working conditions, unless there were in fact more people willing to accept the risk in exchange for the wage (but that implies that not enough people wanted the change in the first place.
it seems to me that you believe a job is some sort of “right.” furthermore, you must believe that this job should provide enough for some arbitrary amount of comfort to purchase some arbitrary amount of goods and services while providing and arbitrary level of protection from risk. You muthe then reject all aspects of the free market, because you would need to force food, clothes, shelter, etc. to be produced and sold at prices low enough to meet your arbitrary thresholds of this fundamental “right.”
employment is not a right. the reasoning is that you only wish everyone had a job so they could buy things, like food. but that’s too vague, and ignores the fact that risk always exists. There is no guarantee that there won’t be a drought and all food from some large region will be wiped out. and if it does, the unfortunate people affected have no right to force someone to ship and sell them food, at arbitrarily “low enough” prices. No different than a bear that moves to a different region from other bears and unfortunately went to a habitat with no food has no right to expect all other bears to come provide him with sustenance. He took the risk, and he will either be rewarded with plenty or be worse off.
The choice is your own, the risk is your own, the consequences are your own. This doesn’t mean others aren’t free to voluntarily choose to help, ie charity. They don’t have a right to coerce a business owner.
The right to life is not a right to be kept alive through the coercion of others
Employers were constantly working to take out unions with scabs, union busters, and the police. There was a lot of violence, too. Trying to organize a union was liable to get you shot by your boss or the police. It’s a wonder they were able to accomplish anything at all.
If it is worth doing, it’s worth a personal sacrifice. Workers could have all quit together, and then helped each other with putting food on the table, for example. Yes, everyone would be eating less than they were used to, but no one would have to starve to death. And luckily, it would seem to me, that doing something like that is easier to go through when you’re not alone. “Solidarity.”
Instead, they lobbied the government to make laws in their favor (no different than many corporations and industries did and still do). Funny, because the main problem, IMO, was government favor towards some corporations and industries, and so workers figured the solution was, not to force the government to maintain its proper Constitutional role and reject corporate favoritism in the eyes of the law, but more of the same poison, which is more regulations and favoritism and lobbying.
Easier said than done does not imply an impossibility, at all. Unions lobbying for regulation on top of regulations implies that they wished to force the sacrifice onto others, namely their employers and workers that did not belong to a union. Collectivism is disastrous in the long term, which leads us to where we are today, with manufacturing leaving the country to somewhere they can make a profit and collectivists demanding the “1%” make more sacrifices for the so they don’t have to save, live within or below their means, or otherwise help each other through real solidarity. It’s fascism v. socialism, which are both failed systems, both examples of using government to live at the expense of others, and both ultimately lead to the loss of life and liberty through the necessary rise of total tyranny.
Well, my account is messed up and isn’t taking my password. So I’m posting from an alt.
But I’ll agree to disagree with you, Phi, if you think there weren’t a whole lot of people trying to organize a general strike like you’ve mentioned despite the problems labor faced.
It is not that I don’t think that there wasn’t a whole lot of people trying to organize a strike. I’m saying “whole lot” is a completely subjective term. Whole lot compared to the number of people willing to take the same jobs if indeed strikes occurred? If not, then that’s too bad, IMO. The market would be saying that there were people willing to take such risks in exchange for the wages/benefits/experience offered. And if there were not many people willing to take those jobs after a strike, the company would have no choices except losing profits and ultimately going out of business or giving in to some demands from labor. The fact that government was needed to make changes in the workplace tells me that there would have been more people willing to accept the risk/reward of those jobs and the organized labor looked to government to make it easier for them to bypass the market and gain at the expense of others through coercion.
That doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t want to have a workplace where basic sanitary measures are taken and they don’t have to put their feet in animal carcasses to stay warm. The employee doesn’t decide how the workplace is run; he has some ability to pick another job, but when unemployment is as high as it was in Chicago and other industrial cities he doesn’t have much choice, and employer intimidation and violence made it difficult to organize. There was never a large group of employees opposed to basic regulations like worker’s comp, even during the Chicago labor riots; workers overwhelmingly supported these measures, but employers were even better organized.
You are confusing desire for demand. Their demand is revealed when they accept the wages in exchange for their labor. If desire was tantamount to demand, one could argue that many consumers wanted more bread for their money, more meat for their money… hell, even those customers wanted more quality for their money, and more convenient shopping experience. And the grocer wanted more money for his bread and meat, and wanted more productivity from his employees for the wages he paid.
Such is the nature of the free market. This is what is meant by demand and supply. Demand and participation in voluntary exchange is how people vote in the markets. But lobbying government to pass legislation that forces their desires upon others. It’s just another form of parasitism. Laws that favor labor are as vile as laws that favor corporations. Minimum wage laws are as evil as price controls. These economic fallacies always have an overall, long-term disastrous effect on the economy. That’s because these types of laws aggress against actors in the markets. It continually diminishes the weight of their vote in the markets until it is meaningless.
We shouldn’t just agree to disagree. You need to reconcile your unfeasible and perverse political philosophy and economic definitions. A job as a right diminishes and obscures the meaning and significance of rights. A desire as demand reduces and blurs the understanding and function of demand. These simple but catastrophic acts are similar to the tools that allow the rise and rule of a dictator.
“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”