Idea for increasing job security, ... sort of

Post Reply New Topic

How much would job security for laborers increase if employers were automatically charged with statutory attempted homicide for firing employees?

None.

Employers would avoid hiring anyone they didn't absolutely need and only the insanely qualified would be considered.

That would certainly be the effect on unemployment.

I think zer0netgain is probably right there would be no impact.

Hiring of workers would be practically gone under this legal arrangement, and this would lead to very small firms that could easily be wiped out. (a firm being unable to maintain employment is not a "firing" though) And the result of this that nobody would have any job security.

If this rule were non-automatic, then all but the most irate of fired employees would refuse to do this, and the ones who would do this would probably be blacklisted by the business community. And the non-use of the rule would be automatic for efficiency reasons.

So these people will let work go undone because of such a law. Why do people cower in fear of these people? Companies don't hire because we've carried out token sacrifices to them, they hire because work has to be done, and this is tied to consumer demand.

Certainly measures should be taken to increase job security and these people shouldn't be allowed to blackmail society into arrangements that can cause bad health and premature death for much of the population. They owe us, they are not our lords and masters.

Who would want to start a business if it almost certainly would lead to his prosecution?

Your proposal is a thoroughly bad idea, both in (moral) principle and in practice. The only employer possible under your proposal is the government which would have sovereign immunity.

ruveyn

Actually, businesses such as sole proprietorships and partnerships would be the ones possible. Private corporations and government bureaucracies would be the ones effected. The government would not have sovereign immunity.

Well, it isn't "fear", it's just the fact that this regulation is unreasonable and provides bad incentive.

This isn't a matter of "token sacrifice" but rather it makes clear sense that as regulation and other forces increase the costs of hiring, less people will be hired, regardless of consumer demand.



I don't think they are trying to "blackmail", they do use market power when they have it, but it isn't as strong in all markets, y'know, engineers get paid more, others get paid less.

Even further, talking about "owing" is kind of silly for either side. Employers don't owe people products or jobs, but rather they wanted to make a difference to create products and to this end needed jobs. Society does not owe employers anything either.

Seriously, what has become "level headed discourse" about this is not unlike the Aztecs demanding human sacrifices to keep the sun from burning out, and token sacrifices to gods through the ages. The rich and owners of capital are the gods, and the sacrifices are in terms of tax cuts, regulations being removed, workplace security being clawed back and other gestures to show that we appreciate them and show that we owe our lives to them, and if we fail with these gestures, they will have their most destructive wrath upon us all. This is total primitivity.

How many times do they say " a poor man doesn't hire anyone" so give huge amounts of additional money, a token sacrifice, to a rich man and a job will be created. That there is no additional demand for that company's product, and in fact there is less because money has to be taken away from the people to give this person the token sacrifice, is of course forgotten. No demand, he pockets the money and sends it to his numbered bank account or puts it in some currency speculation scheme.

Without society and government, these people would not be able to operate in legitimate business. They'd have to become warlords. That's one of many reasons why they owe us. They also benefit from infrastructure also provided by the people. The existence of an educational system to provide the employees they need. There's a reason why there aren't captains of industry based in Somalia and it isn't because of government regulation.

Umm.... not at all. You have to recognize that claiming that firing somebody is literally murder is actually very distorted discourse and deeply problematic. I think most people have treated the idea seriously and fairly.

Am I saying anything close to "human sacrifices"? No, I am just recognizing that regulatory policy can decrease the number of people hired, which is a belief that many economists hold to, some explaining the gap between US and European unemployment rates through this. Not only that, but this is just rational, if people have a solid reason for not doing something, they're either going to break the law to avoid punishment, or not do it, and even if this causes employment issues. I actually do think that a law like this could literally collapse our economic system, so referring back to "consumer demand" and "Aztec Gods" is ridiculous as there is really good reason to do this.

Now, am I saying that every tax cut is important to give, or that all regulations have to be removed, and so on? Um.... no, that's not what is being said, but this is a very stringent regulation. It literally freezes employment so that companies can never ever scale back the number of employees for threat of imprisonment or death. That's very extreme.


Umm..... ok? That's kind of irrelevant to the issue. Nobody is arguing trickle-up or trickle-down policies, instead one regulation is considered terrible.


Honestly, behavior regulating norms can exist without government.

Additionally, they're not using special laws to do this, but rather they're just using the system we put in place so that way we can have a functioning society. The fact of the matter is that society without business is dead, so trying to argue that we are magically more dead without government is just silly. Both ways their dead.

Umm.... the reason why there aren't captains of industry based in Somalia is a lot of reasons, and a *lot* of them have nothing to do with this debate.

What if I have my definition of "statutory attempted homicide" so that the employer isn't actually being charged with murder? But rather so that it would be more like a label to place upon an employer than anything else, sort of like giving you or me the label "Emperor of the Solar System"? Except that it would be increasing in counts per each employee they fire or for each employee they order somebody else to fire (whoever makes the decision to terminate a person's livelihood.)? So, an employer who tends to fire a lot of people would have a multitude of counts of statutory murder, though no punishment other than a rating system that employment applicants can use to decide if they want to work under such an employer.

Ah! A public rating system for job security? Now, that is interesting.

I thought you wanted to place people in jail for firing, and that would be very problematic given that some firings are necessary.(even if many aren't)

As it stands though, this kind of idea is really kind of toothless, I think.

Well, how would you go about adding teeth but not fangs?

That's always the question.

Really, you don't have to look farther than the ADA.

It was intended to help the handicapped. In the end, it does more harm than help by giving employers a reason to AVOID hiring the handicapped, and even then, it helps the handicapped with simpler disabilities to accommodate when it helps anyone.

Rather than punish employers for discriminating against the disabled, it probably would have been more effective to have programs to encourage the hiring and advancement of disabled people.

You often get better results with a carrot as compared to a stick.