You make many good points about problems inherent in a free market, don't dirty them with half-truths. Companies compel, and I'm sure in some unfortunate cases intimidate their employees. But until you can cite a gun being held to a person's head, you can't claim they 'force' them. It's a minor point, but there's an important distinction, and I trust you're better than that.
________________________________________________
First of all, no one is insulting you personally and people in general taking things personally in modern political and economic discussion is why we fail so badly at it. We're against the "deregulation" idea, or at least I and many here are. The problem is the idea, not necessarily the people exposing it. That said, we’re all suffering from this idea, so yeah, it’s a raw point.
________________________________________________
The term “half truth,” doesn’t apply to my arguments. We just have a different point of view on the issue and I assert yours is incorrect as you assert mine is.
The businesses in that situation are forcing people to be in those conditions for the following reasons. First, your “gun to the head” standard is from criminal law, which does not apply here. Second, “it’s a dirty job but somebody’s gotta do it.” Third, the worker has no effective control over the working environment and has the choice of working in an unreasonably deadly working condition or letting his family starve (literally). No, there aren't other jobs readily available. The grocery bill is due, now. Thus, the distinction between physical (criminal law) duress force, and economic (civil law) duress force is important, but it is not minor.
First, we’re talking about a human corpse here created by conditions within the company’s control. The company absolutely is wrong and to blame, but civilly and not criminally. Different punishments, but still wrong. The physical duress is a gun to the head and only applicable to criminal matters. This isn’t a criminal matter, so duress under that standard doesn’t apply.
Second, once you take the individual out of the equation, you realize that it absolutely is force. “It is a dirty job but somebody’s gotta do it.” Is absolutely true and in play here. Even saying "well, he should've got better training/paid attention in school," doesn't help this any. Not everyone can go to school. There will be people stuck in shit jobs. The fact that they may or may not have done the best they could've doesn't mean they deserve to die from unsafe working conditions and it certainly doesn't excuse the company from doing the bare minimum to save them....
Third, the worker has no effective control over the working environment and the company has every control over it (as its property).
Plain and simple facts: There is a job. That job has an element of danger to it that can be easily overcome with minimal safety gear. The company refuses to buy this safety gear.
At some point in time, someone will take that job. The company will refuse to alter the working environment to include the safety gear.
Company created deadly working condition knowing it would be putting
someone in said deadly working condition. The person put in that deadly working condition, dies.... Whoever takes that job, will be forced to work in those conditions or quit. Even if they quit, so what? Now they can’t afford to feed their family, so is that really a choice? No, it isn’t an option. Then of course, someone else will come along and take that job so they can feed their family…. At some point, someone will not be able to say no. Thus, force.
Author
Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread (Read 875146 times)