5 ms·

> Is the Economist seriously suggesting we should roll back workers and renters rights because AI makes it too easy for the average Joe to actually get those ri

by mhh__ 11d ago

> Is the Economist seriously suggesting we should roll back workers and renters rights because AI makes it too easy for the average Joe to actually get those rights? Yes, both of these pieces of legislation are extremely badly designed feel-good nonsense, which I personally hope will be shown to be so by an avalanche of claims automated by AI. The employment rights legislation we have at the moment literally abolishes the market for labour - the final decision as to if your salary is "fair" is made by a judge.

rcxdude 11d ago
>The employment rights legislation we have at the moment literally abolishes the market for labour - the final decision as to if your salary is "fair" is made by a judge. Can you explain this? I can't find anything on this from a quick google. Employment rights act seems to say very little about salary beyond the minimum wage.
- mhh__ 11d ago
  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0817jd9dqo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0817jd9dqo The judge decided that, despite prices suggesting otherwise, the two types of labour here were the same.
  - rcxdude 11d ago
    Ah, I see, an argument that there was gender discrimination in pay for 'equal value' jobs despite the actual job being different. I agree this decision seems like a bit of a strange reach, but it's far from saying it abolishes the market for labor entirely. (Also, this is more part of the Equality Act, a piece of legislation that is in pretty dire need of redrafting for a bunch of other reasons, as opposed to the Employment Rights Act)
  - graemep 11d ago
    That has nothing to with the recent legislation referred to in the article. The principle (which I disagree with BTW) has been part of equality law for decades.
    - mhh__ 10d ago
      Why are these cases only happening now? The article is clearly talking about the wider principle anywwy
      - graemep 10d ago
        The cases have been happening for decades. I recall studying one in the early 90s so it probably happened in the 80s. I think the article lacks evidence that anything has changed recently.
pydry 11d ago
Scrooge would probably agree wholeheartedly. The reality is that curtailment of abusive zero hours contracts provided by the employment rights legislation was direly needed and renters desperately needed protection against landlords who would habitually jack up rents and kick you out. These are probably the only two good bits of legislation done in the last few years. The renters rights act has led to buy to let landlords selling up all over leading to a decline in property prices. It's hardly feel good - it means first time buyers can get on the property ladder easier and renters cant be kicked out as easily.
- mhh__ 11d ago
  Rent controls are great if you already have a place
  - vinaigrette 11d ago
    Controlling real estate supply should be in every local government playbook.
    - mhh__ 10d ago
      They already do, you need permission from local government to build almost anything in Britain.
  - rcxdude 11d ago
    The UK rental rights don't really have rent controls as they're normally conceived: the two limits are rent can only go up once a year and that it must be roughly in line with similar properties in the market or area, i.e. explicitly rents follow the market.
    - mhh__ 10d ago
      The renters rights act is already seemingly leading to distortion in the market - it's not really the price controls as per se but the inability to do things when the tenant is in place.
threecheese 11d ago
Does “The final decision is made by a judge” mean “workers rights can ultimately be arbitrated by a judge when escalated”, or “judges arbitrate all workers rights complaints”? If the former, i believe that’s reasonable; if the latter, thats nuts - and I might not balk at a statement like yours (“abolishes…”).
Blazara 11d ago
What part of ending no fault eviction is feel good nonsense? People not being able to be evicted from their homes arbitrarily is a bad thing?
- gruez 10d ago
  >People not being able to be evicted from their homes arbitrarily is a bad thing? There's a counterparty to that transaction, and presumably has some reason to want to cancel it, so they're being harmed in some way. Even if you don't have sympathy for landlords though, there's still the second order effects where all landlords discriminate against tenants more, because they know that getting rid of bad tenants is going to be a pain. It's similar to the employment situation in Europe. Making workers harder to fire might sound like a great idea, but it also makes employers more reluctant to hire, especially if they can't easily get rid of them afterwards.

by mhh__ 11d ago

rcxdude 11d ago

>The employment rights legislation we have at the moment literally abolishes the market for labour - the final decision as to if your salary is "fair" is made by a judge. Can you explain this? I can't find anything on this from a quick google. Employment rights act seems to say very little about salary beyond the minimum wage.

mhh__ 11d ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0817jd9dqo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0817jd9dqo The judge decided that, despite prices suggesting otherwise, the two types of labour here were the same.
- rcxdude 11d ago
  Ah, I see, an argument that there was gender discrimination in pay for 'equal value' jobs despite the actual job being different. I agree this decision seems like a bit of a strange reach, but it's far from saying it abolishes the market for labor entirely. (Also, this is more part of the Equality Act, a piece of legislation that is in pretty dire need of redrafting for a bunch of other reasons, as opposed to the Employment Rights Act)
- graemep 11d ago
  That has nothing to with the recent legislation referred to in the article. The principle (which I disagree with BTW) has been part of equality law for decades.
  - mhh__ 10d ago
    Why are these cases only happening now? The article is clearly talking about the wider principle anywwy
    - graemep 10d ago
      The cases have been happening for decades. I recall studying one in the early 90s so it probably happened in the 80s. I think the article lacks evidence that anything has changed recently.

pydry 11d ago

Scrooge would probably agree wholeheartedly. The reality is that curtailment of abusive zero hours contracts provided by the employment rights legislation was direly needed and renters desperately needed protection against landlords who would habitually jack up rents and kick you out. These are probably the only two good bits of legislation done in the last few years. The renters rights act has led to buy to let landlords selling up all over leading to a decline in property prices. It's hardly feel good - it means first time buyers can get on the property ladder easier and renters cant be kicked out as easily.

mhh__ 11d ago
Rent controls are great if you already have a place
- vinaigrette 11d ago
  Controlling real estate supply should be in every local government playbook.
  - mhh__ 10d ago
    They already do, you need permission from local government to build almost anything in Britain.
- rcxdude 11d ago
  The UK rental rights don't really have rent controls as they're normally conceived: the two limits are rent can only go up once a year and that it must be roughly in line with similar properties in the market or area, i.e. explicitly rents follow the market.
  - mhh__ 10d ago
    The renters rights act is already seemingly leading to distortion in the market - it's not really the price controls as per se but the inability to do things when the tenant is in place.

threecheese 11d ago

Does “The final decision is made by a judge” mean “workers rights can ultimately be arbitrated by a judge when escalated”, or “judges arbitrate all workers rights complaints”? If the former, i believe that’s reasonable; if the latter, thats nuts - and I might not balk at a statement like yours (“abolishes…”).

Blazara 11d ago

What part of ending no fault eviction is feel good nonsense? People not being able to be evicted from their homes arbitrarily is a bad thing?

gruez 10d ago
>People not being able to be evicted from their homes arbitrarily is a bad thing? There's a counterparty to that transaction, and presumably has some reason to want to cancel it, so they're being harmed in some way. Even if you don't have sympathy for landlords though, there's still the second order effects where all landlords discriminate against tenants more, because they know that getting rid of bad tenants is going to be a pain. It's similar to the employment situation in Europe. Making workers harder to fire might sound like a great idea, but it also makes employers more reluctant to hire, especially if they can't easily get rid of them afterwards.