Display:
I do think -- and I know it's unpopular to say -- that Europe needs to loosen its labor market, and I think it will, eventually.  Everyone seems to talk about it.  Nobody seems to propose anything that's worth the paper it's printed on.

Maybe you can explain what that means?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 11:25:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In a diary for preference. Anytime I try to find out it always boils down to cheaper labour.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 11:27:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure I could get enough length to put it in a diary.  But take, for example, the recent issue in France -- or was it Germany?  My memory is a bit off today -- of allowing companies to fire first-time jobholders as they see fit within (I think) the first two years.  Why is this such a bad thing?  If the worker performs well, the company will keep him.  If not, it will fire him.

I don't understand the reasoning behind making it difficult to fire people.  It's not right, in my opinion, to try to force companies to keep poorly-performing workers.  If I'm going to take a chance on a business -- take out a loan, and all of that good stuff -- then I should be able to hire and fire people as I see fit.  In that case, it's my credit rating and source of income that are on the line.

It's a similar argument to the one I made about smoking in bars.  If I take out a loan to start a pub in Newcastle, I should have the right to decide whether I allow people to smoke in my pub, and I'll probably decide whether or not to allow it based upon how much I can expect to earn in each case.

Now the argument could be made that, well, smoking is unhealthy and it puts strains on the NHS, and I havelittle doubt that this is true, but are we going to start telling restaurant owners that they can only serve a fixed portion of food, too?  Because overeating is certainly just as unhealthy as smoking.  There's a whole host of other problems that we could get into discussion on.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 12:10:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
.  Why is this such a bad thing?  If the worker performs well, the company will keep him.  If not, it will fire him.

Because in that case the company has all the bargaining power and the worker has none. It's a matter of fairness. You don't start a company in a vacuum: you build it in the context of the existing infrastructure and you have responsibilities as well as rights.

In any case, there isn't a real problem getting rid of incompetent workers.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 12:20:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So you have two potential solutions: (1) Workers at the company could unionize, and (2) if the worker performs well, making him an asset to the company, he will have bargaining power, because it will be in the company's interest to keep him.  If it were the case that the worker had no bargaining power, then people in non-unionized sectors wouldn't be able to demand raises from their bosses.  The bosses would simply say, "Go to hell.  I'll find someone else to do the job."

Sometimes that happens, of course.  A lot of times, actually.  But often it does not.

Of course you start companies within the context of the existing conditions.  I'm not denying that.  I'm saying that the conditions could be better.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 12:29:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...to take issue with you on that the last time, but I hadn't the time, so this might be the moment...

Smoking is always damaging your health, and that of those nearby, but you can go without. You can damage yourself by eating, but you can't go without food, and you don't indirectly damage others (ignoring the bio-industry).

So that comparison didn't ring so well with me. Problem is: if you leave the choice up to the pub owner, every pub will allow smoking, since no one will want to block  some 30 percent of their clients voluntarily. But not everyone of that non-smoking 70 percent agrees with smoke - so should that, say, 10 percent set up their own non-smoking bar? I don't suspect it's profitable enough, if ordinary pubs are still around.

And Colman's previous argument stands. To let non-smokers work in a smokey environment which is damaging to their health shouldn't be allowed. It works like this for me: you're free to do what you want until the moment your actions discomfort or harm others; that's where the line is drawn. Smoking is the perfect example here. On the food, you've a point, but I'm not qualified enough to mingle in the actual debate. That's why I prefer to stand on the sideline and launch offtopic comments at people. Glad to be of service.

BTW, the majority of the Italians are exceptionally pleased by their non-smoking regulations. As true Italians, they now comment they can taste the food and wine in restaurants much, much better. For Italians, that says something...

by Nomad on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 05:59:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's a far-from-perfect comparison.  You're right.  But the fact that food is a necessity and smoking is doesn't change the other fact -- that both smoking and overeating are unhealthy.  Everyone needs to eat.  They don't have to overeat, so I maintain my point about the regulation.

Now, that 70% of people don't smoke, and don't want to be around smoke, doesn't change anything.  They can still demand that the owner ban it in his pub, or they can accept the fact that people are going to smoke, or they can leave.  They're not forced to go to the pub.  If you siphon off that 10% from multiple bars, I have very little doubt that you could probably make a profitable business.

Most major cities in Britain, from what I've seen, are much larger than the city I live in, in terms of population.  (Greater Nottingham, alone, is roughly six times the size of Tallahassee, and I don't think Nottingham is very large by English standards.  I could be wrong.)  We have many smoking and non-smoking bars, some right next to each other, and all are profitable.  (It's a college town.  There are a lot of bars.)  I'm sure the market would be large enough.

Non-smokers shouldn't have to work in smoke-filled offices, and they don't.  They don't have to take the job.  Again, I stand by my point that, if someone takes out a loan to start his or her own business, he or she should be able to set these sorts of rules, because it's that person's money and credit on the line.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Fri Feb 10th, 2006 at 12:57:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Non-smokers shouldn't have to work in smoke-filled offices, and they don't.  They don't have to take the job.
You just threw out health and safety regulations in the workplace, Drew. Something is wrong with your premises if you keep reaching these conclusions.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 10th, 2006 at 01:00:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I did?  How so?

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Fri Feb 10th, 2006 at 01:13:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
According to you, there's no need to institute health and safety regulations because (paraphrase) "workers don't have to work in unhealthy or unsafe conditions: they don't have to take the job" and, moreover, health and safety regulations interfere with the operation of the market.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 10th, 2006 at 01:39:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think they interfere too much with the market in the case of (say) legislating against companies who produce diseased chickens.  However, workers, at least in America, lobbied their bosses for health and safety regulations privately in the past (in addition to lobbying for legislation) back in the 19th Century.  In many cases, companies improved standards to avoid Congress and the president taking action.  (They took action anyway.)  Workers also have the ability to sue companies for these sorts of things.

Nonetheless, your point is well taken.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Fri Feb 10th, 2006 at 02:12:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series