posted
I think that within the confines of the business, it is a private resource. If the business owner pays for everything, and risks all of his money, and the state pays for nothing, then why is it not the owner's? Everything that occurs within that business that relates to the running of the business should be left up to the owner.
If the business produces anything that may effect people outside of the business space, then I think the people through the state may regulate what the business puts out (pollution of various stripes, basically).
I do think that in the interest of 'fairness', a business should be required to list dangers that a worker might be expected to encounter within that person's establishment.. If the worker chooses to work there, then she chooses to take the risks.
What do you guys think?
In your replies, please do not quote existing law as your sole 'argument', unless you are quoting some judge's take on the law and it contributes to your reply. I'm interested in the logic behind your responses.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't this the whole fight workers had to force business to make safe business environments? Forming unions and picketing and all that?
If we let every business self regulate, they abuse the power. we've already seen that in history, thats why we HAVE laws regulating what businesses are and aren't allowed to do to workers-because the workers insisted on it, since they weren't getting fair treatment otherwise. Regular people need money. So if all or most businesses become abusive to workers as a result of being allowed to self regulate, what are the choices? don't work and starve, or risk your health and possibly life working in an abusive environment in order to keep yourself and your family fed.
We've already had the fight about whether businesses should be allowed to decide everything themselves, and had all the protests and unions to force change. We don't really need it again, do we?
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have we had this fight on this forum? I don't think so. I don't recall that we've actually had a discussion centered around this topic on this forum, and only this topic, on this forum. I have a bad memory, but it seems to me that while this issue has been touched on with respect to other issues, I don't recall it every being discussed by itself. Kind of odd when you think about it.
Has the nation had it? Sure. It's still having it. Then again, as I said, I don't care about existing law. I'm interested in what people on this site use as their rationale to think as a certain way.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I've tried to convince Robespierre, I think market economics is the way it is because we made it so through the formation of social and legal conventions. The idea that someone's money is "theirs to risk" on some venture or another may be socially useful, but I don't take market freedom to be a basic right.
So my view is that nothing in economics is off-limit for regulation. Of course, there are some things that would be very foolish for us to regulate. But I don't think there's any objective right and wrong in the market, except insofar as it affects our quality of life.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree with Toretha. We already do have laws that regulate every business, even those that do not seemingly 'interact' with the general p[ublic or environment. These range from the pollution laws you stated to laws governing hiring practices and discrimination.
But you wanted to ignore current laws, so:
What I got from your first paragraphs is that you are asking whether or not we should force regulations on business that do not absorb public/common resources (government money, environmental resources, etc). Personally, I'm a fan of smaller government in regards to regulations. I agree that if a business owner does everything for him/her-self then the governing body should not interfere unless there is some massive reason too. (I am referring to something like they produce a product that literally everyone uses or affects EVERYONE. Something akin to they produce filters used to purifying drinking water all across the country, not to something like *gasp* tobacco products which are avoidable if you care to try)
As to your 'fairness' question, I really don't think that anyone of reasonable intelligence needs to have the dangers of a job told to them. To me this covers two things. 1) Any danger within the job should be obvious. If you get hired as a dynamite technician you should be able to figure out on your own that you may get blown up for fun and profit; so they shouldn't have to list these types of dangers. 2) Any other dangers present in the workplace would be those present at any workplace. If the building might possibly collapse for no apparent reason, its just as likely to happen at company A as company B; so again I don't think it's necessary to have to list such far reaching dangers.
anyways, thats my take on your question
Posts: 100 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I do think that in the interest of 'fairness', a business should be required to list dangers that a worker might be expected to encounter within that person's establishment.. If the worker chooses to work there, then she chooses to take the risks.
I think for a worker to make an informed choice to work at a business, they should be informed of expected dangers. Obviously we are not talking about far reaching hazaards, however, when I went to work in Youth Corrections, after I first graduated, I was glad they told me of the expected dangers I would face and provided sufficient training to handle the dangers.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure I understand your question. If anything the business produces can be regulated if it affects things outside the business, and dangers/risks of the job are posted within the business (presumably with the legal ramifications of ignoring those risks, breaking those policies, etc), I'm not sure what is left in the first part of your post? The culture of productivity and politics within the business?
posted
Some of what you are talking about is already done with the OSHA stuff. But in the end all regulation in the world won't help if the regulations are ignored. So your need to regulate needs to be tempered with the fact that if complience is to burdensome companies will ignore the regs or move out of your jursidiction.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, your suggestion ignores the primary problem: the job market is fundamentally inelastic when considered at a micro level. You may as well say that companies that want to permit their employees to smoke indoors can always move to a state that allows it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You haven't given me much to work with, Tom. So, I'm having to guess what the heck you're saying in relation to my post. My question was: business--public or private resource? Are you saying that business is a public resource because without state regulation, the business, or the market, will not be able to function and society will suffer? Are you invoking the utilitarian rule here? I know you hate typing crap out, but give me a little more to work with. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess one of my questions is, what differentiates 'business' private property from, uh, 'private' private property? Why can't what people do in their homes be regulated like what a 'business' does?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My argument was history, not law. Letting businesses decide for themselves leaves the employees being screwed. And businesses are regulated because the things done affect not only the owners, but the employees, and people buying the products.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If we let every business self regulate, they abuse the power. we've already seen that in history, thats why we HAVE laws regulating what businesses are and aren't allowed to do to workers-because the workers insisted on it, since they weren't getting fair treatment otherwise. Regular people need money. So if all or most businesses become abusive to workers as a result of being allowed to self regulate, what are the choices? don't work and starve, or risk your health and possibly life working in an abusive environment in order to keep yourself and your family fed.
So, your contention is that in every business relationship, it is the employer who holds total power(resources) over the employee because he has money and the employee has none, and that because they hold total power(resources)[...o.k. I'll stop ], they have no reason to behave responsibly towards their employees. So, people who want to work have no choice but to seek relief from the state to come in and regulate, else they will have to work for bad employers with the result of abuse. edit: And, thus, business is a public resource.
quote: My argument was history, not law. Letting businesses decide for themselves leaves the employees being screwed. And businesses are regulated because the things done affect not only the owners, but the employees, and people buying the products.
Your second post adds on the customer.
O.K. Let's expand it out to 'non-businesses'. Let's break it down and make it simple. Would it be fair to say that you believe that if someone feels like they need something to survive, and they believe they can't get it for themselves, they have the right to use the state to resolve matters such that those who have it must give it to them? Is there nothing that we can say is totally, 100% the property of an individual and that in all cases, no matter the result, the community cannot regulate, or have power over, that thing?
posted
Actually, they can band together, form unions, go on strikes, and disrupt businesses. That's happened before. That's why we have laws now-they work out better for all concerned. I'm not arguing categorical imperative. I don't like the idea much. I answered your question. History has shown that laws regulating business behavior generally work out better than strikes unions and businesses abusing their employees to the point where those things are formed.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, you have never really replied to my questions specifically. That's why I summarized what you had already written within the context of my question. (Which, after looking my previous post over, wasn't clear. Pardon.)
I take it you basically don't disagree with my summary, beyond tacking on the bit that citizens don't even have to wait on the state to step in. They can take matters into their own hands because the business is within their (the public's) purview?
quote: is totally, 100% the property of an individual or group, and that in all cases, no matter the result, the community cannot regulate, or have power over, that thing?
Am curious what your thoughts (or anyone else's) are on this? Is there such a thing as totally private property? Should there be such a thing?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Property is one thing, business is another. Because businesses generally affect other people's lives, not just the owners. And yes, people should be able to have a say in things that are going to affect their lives, when at all possible.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Then again, as I said, I don't care about existing law. I'm interested in what people on this site use as their rationale to think as a certain way.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
], they have no reason to behave responsibly towards their employees. So, people who want to work have no choice but to seek relief from the state to come in and regulate, else they will have to work for bad employers with the result of abuse. edit: And, thus, business is a public resource.
