8 ms·

> This has spread to multiple industries across many sectors. It’s affected not just minimum-wage workers, but also middle-class workers. I have no idea how mu

by Padding 12y ago

> This has spread to multiple industries across many sectors. It’s affected not just minimum-wage workers, but also middle-class workers. I have no idea how much of an issue this is and what the real-world implications for the individuals are, but if it has become a systematic phenomenon, then maybe it's worth rethinking the rules? If it really is as wide-spread as they say, then having everyone play by the book might result in a redistribution of large amounts of money, thus impacting inflation .. which I guess is hardly in anyone's interest.

capisce 12y ago
What do you propose? Making the rules say it's OK for employers to exploit their workers?
- Padding 12y ago
  > What do you propose? For starters, rational discourse. I don't see much point in being cynical. If there is demand for those overtime hours and people willing to supply them .. and society as a whole is better off for it in the end, but our rules prohibit it, then clearly there's adequate reason to question the rules. We need to conduct research on how both alternatives - i.e. either enforcing the rules or changing them - would affect everyday life, and then, as a democratic society, let people make a deliberate decision as to which alternative they prefer.
  - fpgeek 12y ago
    Hold on there. Society has already made a judgement that those overtime hours only make society better off when an employer is willing to pay extra for them. Implicit in that is a judgment that neither employers nor employees properly account for the social cost of that overtime (because of short-run vs. long-run considerations, impacts on third parties like the employee's friends and family and so on). Making the case that the social costs have changed and revisiting that judgment democratically is one thing. Evading that judgment by trickery (especially when that can involve tricking the employee) is something very different - cheating the system by shifting the social costs of overtime where they do not belong.
    - Padding 12y ago
      > Evading that judgment by trickery (especially when that can involve tricking the employee) is something very different Yes, agreed. My point was that if it's a wide-spread issue, as the article claims, then employees engaging in those activities probably knew what was expected of them beforehand, and still went ahead with it. If on the other hand it indeed is "trickery", then it's not a wide-spread issue (since tricking people relies on the practice being uncommon enough to not be anticipated), and is thus something that can be sensibly dealt with in courts on a case-by-case basis.
      - capisce 12y ago
        Your argument seems to rely on the assumption that the employees have much of a choice. In theory there's supposed to be a free labor market, but in practice employers hold a much stronger hand than employees. It's hard for employees to vote with their feet when facing the threat of unemployment. Thus their "engaging in those activities" can not exactly be counted as any kind of approval. Some solutions for this could be stronger unions protecting worker's rights, stronger punishments against employers who take advantage of the weak bargaining position of workers, or providing basic income to tip the balance of power a bit more in the worker's favour.
pjc50 12y ago
might result in a redistribution of large amounts of money, thus impacting inflation .. which I guess is hardly in anyone's interest This is the most plutocratic self-serving thing I've seen on HN today. You're arguing for the legalisation of wage theft on the basis that it might disrupt prices. Yes, if you have an economy where all the growth goes to the 1% and the 99% see no change, that might be good for price stability. But why in God's name would anyone want to live like that?
- Padding 12y ago
  > You're arguing for the legalisation of wage theft on the basis that it might disrupt prices. No. I'm arguing that we're currently labeling something as "theft", that might not actually be theft, and that we should thus take a closer look at the issue. > if you have an economy where all the growth goes to the 1% and the 99% see no change Yes and no. Growth (and progress) will go to everyone - Obviously, new technologies will be available to everyone, since there'd be little point in them if the average consumer couldn't afford them. Actual money however will only to to the "1%" (or whatever other small fraction). The idea is that since, in total, those "1%" will spend less of that money on consumables/personal-indulgences, most of this money will either be taken out of circulation (and thus damping inflation) or handled by professionals (and thus put to good use). > But why in God's name would anyone want to live like that? (1) Because it makes for a more easily predictable future, resulting in less headaches. (2) Because less of the work performed by humanity as a whole will be squandered on unimportant endeavours. Like I said, what is the alternative? Give people more money to spend on things like booze and vacation trips?
  - pjc50 12y ago
    might not actually be theft I'm happy to call it fraud instead? Agreeing to pay people for a particular time and then failing to pay them is, at the very least, breach of contract. Falsifying records in order to reduce people's pay is definitely fraud. most of this money will either be taken out of circulation It doesn't go in a Scrooge McDuck money bin. It goes straight back into circulation as investments or bank deposits. handled by professionals (and thus put to good use) Profoundly elitist. We're taking the money off the poor because they might otherwise use it to enjoy themselves or even something really unproductive like feeding their children or receiving medical treatment!

by Padding 12y ago

capisce 12y ago

What do you propose? Making the rules say it's OK for employers to exploit their workers?

Padding 12y ago
> What do you propose? For starters, rational discourse. I don't see much point in being cynical. If there is demand for those overtime hours and people willing to supply them .. and society as a whole is better off for it in the end, but our rules prohibit it, then clearly there's adequate reason to question the rules. We need to conduct research on how both alternatives - i.e. either enforcing the rules or changing them - would affect everyday life, and then, as a democratic society, let people make a deliberate decision as to which alternative they prefer.
- fpgeek 12y ago
  Hold on there. Society has already made a judgement that those overtime hours only make society better off when an employer is willing to pay extra for them. Implicit in that is a judgment that neither employers nor employees properly account for the social cost of that overtime (because of short-run vs. long-run considerations, impacts on third parties like the employee's friends and family and so on). Making the case that the social costs have changed and revisiting that judgment democratically is one thing. Evading that judgment by trickery (especially when that can involve tricking the employee) is something very different - cheating the system by shifting the social costs of overtime where they do not belong.
  - Padding 12y ago
    > Evading that judgment by trickery (especially when that can involve tricking the employee) is something very different Yes, agreed. My point was that if it's a wide-spread issue, as the article claims, then employees engaging in those activities probably knew what was expected of them beforehand, and still went ahead with it. If on the other hand it indeed is "trickery", then it's not a wide-spread issue (since tricking people relies on the practice being uncommon enough to not be anticipated), and is thus something that can be sensibly dealt with in courts on a case-by-case basis.
    - capisce 12y ago
      Your argument seems to rely on the assumption that the employees have much of a choice. In theory there's supposed to be a free labor market, but in practice employers hold a much stronger hand than employees. It's hard for employees to vote with their feet when facing the threat of unemployment. Thus their "engaging in those activities" can not exactly be counted as any kind of approval. Some solutions for this could be stronger unions protecting worker's rights, stronger punishments against employers who take advantage of the weak bargaining position of workers, or providing basic income to tip the balance of power a bit more in the worker's favour.

pjc50 12y ago

might result in a redistribution of large amounts of money, thus impacting inflation .. which I guess is hardly in anyone's interest This is the most plutocratic self-serving thing I've seen on HN today. You're arguing for the legalisation of wage theft on the basis that it might disrupt prices. Yes, if you have an economy where all the growth goes to the 1% and the 99% see no change, that might be good for price stability. But why in God's name would anyone want to live like that?

Padding 12y ago
> You're arguing for the legalisation of wage theft on the basis that it might disrupt prices. No. I'm arguing that we're currently labeling something as "theft", that might not actually be theft, and that we should thus take a closer look at the issue. > if you have an economy where all the growth goes to the 1% and the 99% see no change Yes and no. Growth (and progress) will go to everyone - Obviously, new technologies will be available to everyone, since there'd be little point in them if the average consumer couldn't afford them. Actual money however will only to to the "1%" (or whatever other small fraction). The idea is that since, in total, those "1%" will spend less of that money on consumables/personal-indulgences, most of this money will either be taken out of circulation (and thus damping inflation) or handled by professionals (and thus put to good use). > But why in God's name would anyone want to live like that? (1) Because it makes for a more easily predictable future, resulting in less headaches. (2) Because less of the work performed by humanity as a whole will be squandered on unimportant endeavours. Like I said, what is the alternative? Give people more money to spend on things like booze and vacation trips?
- pjc50 12y ago
  might not actually be theft I'm happy to call it fraud instead? Agreeing to pay people for a particular time and then failing to pay them is, at the very least, breach of contract. Falsifying records in order to reduce people's pay is definitely fraud. most of this money will either be taken out of circulation It doesn't go in a Scrooge McDuck money bin. It goes straight back into circulation as investments or bank deposits. handled by professionals (and thus put to good use) Profoundly elitist. We're taking the money off the poor because they might otherwise use it to enjoy themselves or even something really unproductive like feeding their children or receiving medical treatment!