7 ms·

a major function of the law is to mediate between groups that have unequal power as a collective, employees out-vote employers and can obtain this kind of conc

a major function of the law is to mediate between groups that have unequal power as a collective, employees out-vote employers and can obtain this kind of concession through the law but not in an individual contract negotiation (mancur olson notwithstanding) taken to its logical extreme your argument would forbid all group negotiations, I'd think?

roenxi 3mo ago
I'm just going off the summary document [0], but the law doesn't seem to require any particular working hours. It just says people should stick to them once they've been agreed. That's already implied by having working hours. The whole bill basically just tells the regulator that the legislature thinks the fine for not sticking to the employment contract should be up to $500 which is probably redundant since I assume the regulator (or someone, at any rate) can already fine people who don't stick to contracts. And they shouldn't need special and specific powers to fine someone for particular employment contract violations, if they're going to have power they should have general powers. > taken to its logical extreme your argument would forbid all group negotiations, I'd think? I don't see how the bill or anything I wrote have anything to do with group negotiations. People can negotiate as a group for all I care, as long as I can negotiate on my own. [0] https://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/billanalysis/Senate/htm/2026-SFA-0948-G.htm https://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/billanalysis/...
- Arainach 3mo ago
  > I assume the regulator (or someone, at any rate) can already fine people who don't stick to contracts ....what contract? There's no contract in most cases and contracts that exist very rarely define hours. I've never encountered one that did. > seem to require any particular working hours This isn't about enforcing hours, it's about communication during hours you're not being paid for.
  - roenxi 3mo ago
    Then there's something that they should actually legislate - before taking someone on as an employee there needs to be a written document outlining what the responsibilities of each side of the relationship are. And if the regulator wants to be helpful the can put out a pamphlet talking about what "reasonable" is interpreted to mean. If the expectations on employees aren't clear then that is an actual problem that a legislator can try to solve. Legislating what should be a line in a contract as an act is silly.
- awinter-py 3mo ago
  ah you're just saying that 'usual work hours' isn't defined in the statute and doesn't seem to be capped at 40 for salaried workers? fair their jury duty hour cap statute uses similar language: > hours normally and customarily worked by the person during a day https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-1348 https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-1... Maybe it's established in case law that this is 40 for a salaried worker? (I'm not a michigan employment lawyer). I wonder if a draft of this proposed hardcoding it at 40 and they had a reason not to?

roenxi 3mo ago

I'm just going off the summary document [0], but the law doesn't seem to require any particular working hours. It just says people should stick to them once they've been agreed. That's already implied by having working hours. The whole bill basically just tells the regulator that the legislature thinks the fine for not sticking to the employment contract should be up to $500 which is probably redundant since I assume the regulator (or someone, at any rate) can already fine people who don't stick to contracts. And they shouldn't need special and specific powers to fine someone for particular employment contract violations, if they're going to have power they should have general powers. > taken to its logical extreme your argument would forbid all group negotiations, I'd think? I don't see how the bill or anything I wrote have anything to do with group negotiations. People can negotiate as a group for all I care, as long as I can negotiate on my own. [0] https://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/billanalysis/Senate/htm/2026-SFA-0948-G.htm https://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/billanalysis/...

Arainach 3mo ago
> I assume the regulator (or someone, at any rate) can already fine people who don't stick to contracts ....what contract? There's no contract in most cases and contracts that exist very rarely define hours. I've never encountered one that did. > seem to require any particular working hours This isn't about enforcing hours, it's about communication during hours you're not being paid for.
- roenxi 3mo ago
  Then there's something that they should actually legislate - before taking someone on as an employee there needs to be a written document outlining what the responsibilities of each side of the relationship are. And if the regulator wants to be helpful the can put out a pamphlet talking about what "reasonable" is interpreted to mean. If the expectations on employees aren't clear then that is an actual problem that a legislator can try to solve. Legislating what should be a line in a contract as an act is silly.
awinter-py 3mo ago
ah you're just saying that 'usual work hours' isn't defined in the statute and doesn't seem to be capped at 40 for salaried workers? fair their jury duty hour cap statute uses similar language: > hours normally and customarily worked by the person during a day https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-1348 https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-1... Maybe it's established in case law that this is 40 for a salaried worker? (I'm not a michigan employment lawyer). I wonder if a draft of this proposed hardcoding it at 40 and they had a reason not to?