Jobs -- Right or Privilege?

[Pangloss]

I just thought it would be amusing to see if I could catch anyone in a rather obvious hypocrisy, given our current discussion about whether drug use should be legalized.

[gcol]

Don't see the connection between jobs and drugs and the relative rights thereof, but the stated question of this topic may itself provoke some interesting views.

 

Mine is that it is my right to offer someone a job, and if they accept they should be grateful and feel privileged.

[Dak]

The only way you can survive in society is with money, and the only (legal) source of money is having a job. by putting us in a situation whereby we need a job in order to survive, yes, a job becomes a right, simply because if our society demands we do something 'or else', it must also provide the ability for us to actually comply with it's demand; putting people in a situation whereby they must do something to survive, but not actually ensuring that its even theryoretically possible for them to do it is unnaceptable.

 

otoh, this doesn't mean that people shouldn't have to earn their job.

 

So, imo the oppertunity to get a job is a right, whilst having a job is not. by which i mean that it's the govournments responsability to ensure that everyone can get a job (eg, no job shortages); however, if you're going to be unreliable and incompetent, no-one's obliged to actually give you a job. that you have the ability to pull yourself together and get a job is enough.

 

I also don't see any potential for hypocracy atwix drug and job policy

[JohnF]

Mine is that it is my right to offer someone a job, and if they accept they should be grateful and feel privileged.

 

I agree, jobs are a privilege. If you have the power to offer someone employment then it's for you to bestow that right. Nobody has a right to anything. Rights are given and can be taken away or just not given in the first place.

[jackson33]

the interesting thing with the American system and to a degree in many other countries a person can create their own job. some folks simply have problems with authority or conforming to others for what they feel is offered.

 

governments, responsibility to its citizens, do not include jobs. they have in most cases the worst job/productivity ratio on the planet in the few employees that are require to operate government.

 

a job is the responsibility of any individual, to prepare for and acquire. any employer has the total discretion to employ or not any person and this should always be the rule. like wise this employer should maintain the right to upgrade, reward or fire this person at any desired time. in my opinion this should be for any reason, that employer or decision maker so decides.

[Sisyphus]

A "right," in anglican legal systems, is something which the government can't make a law against. I don't really see what that has to do with jobs.

[Pangloss]

So, imo the oppertunity to get a job is a right, whilst having a job is not. by which i mean that it's the govournments responsability to ensure that everyone can get a job (eg, no job shortages); however, if you're going to be unreliable and incompetent, no-one's obliged to actually give you a job. that you have the ability to pull yourself together and get a job is enough.

 

An interesting distinction, but one which I don't believe is recognized by the usual "jobs are a right" crowd, unfortunately.

 

 

I also don't see any potential for hypocracy atwix drug and job policy

 

The hypocrisy lies in the area of allowing people to do whatever they want "because it's a free country", but then expanding that philosophy to remove rights based on safety concerns and economic issues. Rights have nothing to do with safety concerns or economic issues, and using them on that basis is a bastardization of meaning, and therefore an hypocrisy (or at least a contradiction of meaning for the purposes of political/ideological progress).

 

Saying that jobs (or job "opportunities") are a right is a bit like saying that fair weather is a right. We have some control over the weather, but when we try to exert too much authority it just kinda laughs and does what it wants to do, ignoring us. If we force the issue we end up with unintended consequences (pollution, climate change, etc).

 

Same deal with jobs. Nothing wrong with exerting a little pressure here and there, but it never ceases to amaze me that scientists and engineers can come to the conclusion that jobs should be a right, given their inate understanding of cause and effect. The fact that they do so just underscores the conviction I have that political correctness is rampant amongst scientists and engineers, and has affected their judgement and their work.

 

But I digress. The reason most people won't find an hypocrisy here is because they can make a distinction between what's good for you and what's not good for you. That's fine, so long as you are willing to compromise freedom in that manner. So long as everyone takes their prescribed medications, consumes their prescribed entertainments, and attends their prescribed jobs, everything is fine.

 

All hail the great and glorious state, which in its infinite wisdom has provided me with every freedom that I need, and kept from me the ones which are too dangerous to want.

[GutZ]

How can a job be a right? Maybe if your not getting paid for...but thats just wierd.

[Haezed]

Jobs must be earned.

[ParanoiA]

The only way you can survive in society is with money, and the only (legal) source of money is having a job. by putting us in a situation whereby we need a job in order to survive, yes, a job becomes a right, simply because if our society demands we do something 'or else', it must also provide the ability for us to actually comply with it's demand; putting people in a situation whereby they must do something to survive, but not actually ensuring that its even theryoretically possible for them to do it is unnaceptable.

 

You don't need a job - you need currency for trade. You get money by inheritance, lottery, labor, a business of some kind etc...in my opinion you don't have a right to squat. You have a right to pursue squat.

[Dak]

You don't need a job - you need currency for trade. You get money by inheritance, lottery, labor, a business of some kind etc...in my opinion you don't have a right to squat. You have a right to pursue squat.

 

yes, exactly. you don't have a right to a job, but you have a right to persue a job; which kinda requires that there are enough jobs for everyone to persue.

 

most people can't rely on inheritance or lottery for their money, so it's a job or nothing (i'm counting being a self-employed buisness owner as a job).

 

Rights have nothing to do with safety concerns or economic issues

 

maybe not officially, but most people consider basic safety a right.

 

wether or not economics are involved is irrelevent to the basic 'right' people have to actually be able to survive by working within the confines of their society. which is just a poncy way of saying that if people are limited to 'survival by enployment', then they can claim the right to the enployment opertunities that they need to survive.

 

Saying that jobs (or job "opportunities") are a right is a bit like saying that fair weather is a right. We have some control over the weather, but when we try to exert too much authority it just kinda laughs and does what it wants to do, ignoring us. If we force the issue we end up with unintended consequences (pollution, climate change, etc).

 

Same deal with jobs. Nothing wrong with exerting a little pressure here and there, but it never ceases to amaze me that scientists and engineers can come to the conclusion that jobs should be a right, given their inate understanding of cause and effect. The fact that they do so just underscores the conviction I have that political correctness is rampant amongst scientists and engineers, and has affected their judgement and their work.

 

well, for an extreme example, take the wall-street crash, which threw squillions of americans into poverty; they couldn't get jobs, and so survival became hard. given that american society was such that getting (the now rare) jobs was the only way to survive, it was the american govournments responsibility to fix the situation so that all these americans could actually get jobs, and actually survive in the only way that the american society allows.

 

ultimately, this is what the US govournment did. I don't really think that anyone can say that those squillions of americans had no 'right' to demand that their govournment fixed stuff, or that they were in any way to blame, nor that they should just be left to suffer due to their inability to get a non-existant job. basically, many of these americans couldn't afford food/shelter/etc due to the fact that there was no job for them to get, in a society that was structured such that they needed a job. in other words, the had no food/shelter because of the way that their society was at that point. it was societies fault. hence, society had an obligation to provide job-opertunities, so that they could fix their lifes in the only way that society allows them to.

 

imagine that scaled down, and thats the situation that exists today; we still must have jobs to get before it can be required that we get them, if that makes sense? i dont think thats 'PC' in any way, shape, or form, and it's not like the weather in that it can actually be controlled (see the wall street crash again, for a pretty majour provision of job oppertunities by the govournment)

 

-----

 

actually, 'society must provide job opertunities' is a bit of an over-simplification. if society limits us to getting a job as the 1 way of suviving, then society has an onus to either ensure that we can actually get a job, or 'let us off' if we cannot due to the fact that they are not there (i.e., welfare).

[PhDP]

The idea that having a job is a right is quite popular in France, and it's also a major economic problem. Firing someone in France requires herculean effort, if you have more than 50 employees and you're firing more than 10, you must propose a "social plan". And of course, when you're firing, you have to prove it's fair, but even if you do, the employee can sue, and they often win their case.

[D H]

The idea that having a job is a right is quite popular in France ...

 

The downside is that France (and other European) have a significantly higher unemployment rate than in the US, where a job is not a "right". Paradoxically, treating a job as a right means more people don't have that right than in those places where having a job is treated as a privilege.

 

Were I an employer, I would very careful in my hiring practices if I knew it would take Herculean efforts to get rid of a loser.

[Pangloss]

Dak I do appreciate the distinction you're making, and respect your opinion on it. I just don't think most of the "jobs are a right" demogogues are making the same distinction. On this we'd probably agree, if I'm reading you right. I just don't think most people want to spend the time considering the issues too carefully. They want the bling-bling (and in fairness many just want to get by and aren't actually concerned about keeping up with the Joneses).

 

What "jobs are a right" means in practice is that companies lay people off because their income is insufficient to maintain payroll and then Jesse Jackson shows up to stage a protest rally, using the phrase "jobs are a right" to mean "this employer had no right to fire these employees under any circumstances".

 

Don't get me wrong -- intelligent and experienced analysts who point out specific tactics used by publically-held corporations to increase profits at the expense of employees may well have perfectly legitimate complaints. But Jackson and his ilk aren't about that. They're about forcing one group of people to do something against their will for no other reason than the fact that it helps another group of people.

 

That is the political reality of the "jobs are a right" issue in this country. I don't just mean that that's how the demogogues see it, either. That is the entire scope of the issue, as known to the public arena at this moment in time. That's how it is presented in the news media, debated by pundits, and understood by the people. The demogogues have completely defined this issue.

[Saryctos]

The funny thing is, this issue is actually going to show up in main stream media in the next few decades. I can feel it. With minimum wage increasing, and prices for automated systems decreasing, you'll see more automation out there 'taking their jobs'. Then there will be a debate about how, "You can't automate this or that, because you have to maintain the unemployment rate!" It's coming, just you wait and see.

 

I remember my economics teacher trying to tell me that the system will always adapt to a massive loss of available jobs, but I just gotta wonder. what would happen if the US lost over 50% of it's services jobs to automation? Also, for more than just a economic question, we have a philisophical question too. What jobs would fill i nthe gap? If their was no replacement, what would all these people do when jobs no longer exist for that much of the population? Would we fall into socialism, communism, anarchy? Just what could a society do to cercumvent* a 30% unemployment rate? Would we even have to do something about it?

 

Jobs are not a right. You have no claim to any salary out of the womb. To survive, that is your job.

[Sisyphus]

Here's a thought:

 

"Are jobs a right?" and "Is it a good idea for our society/governments to provide a job for anyone willing to work?" are two different questions. IMO, the answer to the first is obviously no. The answer to the second seems to be "depends on the circumstances."

 

Refusing to separate the two questions is the act of a demagogue, no matter which point he's trying to make: "It's a right because we need work!" "Those pinkos think they're entitled to my hard-earned money!"

 

I remember my economics teacher trying to tell me that the system will always adapt to a massive loss of available jobs, but I just gotta wonder. what would happen if the US lost over 50% of it's services jobs to automation? Also, for more than just a economic question, we have a philisophical question too. What jobs would fill i nthe gap? If their was no replacement, what would all these people do when jobs no longer exist for that much of the population? Would we fall into socialism, communism, anarchy? Just what could a society do to cercumvent* a 30% unemployment rate? Would we even have to do something about it?

 

That's a good question, though hardly a new one. The trend towards automation is as old as civilization, and there have always been people whose jobs became obsolete because of it. For the past 150 years or so, there have been those who predicted an "age of joblessness" or (for optimists) an "age of leisure" within a few generations. Science fiction from the mid-20th century is particularly full of this. Even Star Trek is an example: automation makes basic necessities so inexpensive that it's a merely trivial burden to support as many "unemployed" members of society as necessary, and no one HAS to work. I honestly believe that's entirely plausible, though whether it's desirable is a much more complicated question....

[Dak]

What "jobs are a right" means in practice is that companies lay people off because their income is insufficient to maintain payroll and then Jesse Jackson shows up to stage a protest rally, using the phrase "jobs are a right" to mean "this employer had no right to fire these employees under any circumstances".

 

well, yeah, that's stupid. France has allready been mentioned as an example of why. we get the same whining in the UK whenever a british country makes mass layoffs, and they expect our govournment to do something about it; but, often, if the company doesn't make the layoffs it'd become uneconomical and collapse, thus not being able enploy anyone; and i'm sure people don't want to pay extra taxes to support a company so that it can enploy extra people...

 

but, with the above situations, the layed-off people can allways go get other jobs so it's not really a problem imo, even if they have to get unglamorous and lower-payed jobs as a result.

 

Refusing to separate the two questions is the act of a demagogue, no matter which point he's trying to make

 

if you're of the oppinion that jobs/job opertunities are a right, then the second question becomes superfolous.

[GutZ]

The funny thing is, this issue is actually going to show up in main stream media in the next few decades. I can feel it. With minimum wage increasing, and prices for automated systems decreasing, you'll see more automation out there 'taking their jobs'. Then there will be a debate about how, "You can't automate this or that, because you have to maintain the unemployment rate!" It's coming, just you wait and see.

 

It's already reality I've just taken a course on this I forget the term but....Within Union it specifically states in some contracts that a company can not have more than 10% of the workforce fired due to robotics/automated machinery being put in. I'd have to look it up again, I havent typed my notes yet. Of course that negoiated, but still I think it's common.

[fredrik]

I tend to agree with Dac.

 

Whoever (dictators or majority choose governments) that apply constraints on society - laws and rules, should also have some kind or moral responsibility for it's consequences.

 

This includes ensuring that the exists a reasonable solution for everyone, meaning that everyone should at least have a reasonable chance to a decent life. If not, the result will be tension, people suffering, and maybe even crime. The worst case scenario is if someone feels they have received an unfair chance, because then this may power criminal solutions, and people loosing respect for the constraints. And I'm not talking about that your neighbour makes more money than you, I'm talking about people that risk their life and healt because they don't have money to pay for medical care, or doesn't have money for food, or people that live in constant horror. And where the solution to their future might not be possible respecting the constraints. And from a moral point of view I would hold whoever is responsible for the rules, part responsible for this. I would not blaim someone who is starving for stealing food etc. At some point I'm sure I'd do the same, if I see that as my best solution.

 

For those who say that life isn't fair, nature isn't fair nor "perfect" etc. That is certainly true, but that is no excuse for not doing our best to make it as good as possible. Doing my best is as far as my own moral goes. In as much as I am completely aware of that nature in imperfect I am also aware of that people that suffer are less likely to align to the laws of society, and that eventually it will come back and hit me in the face.

 

/Fredrik

[Kailassa]

Mine is that it is my right to offer someone a job, and if they accept they should be grateful and feel privileged.

 

If the job situation is so bad that I'm desperate for a way to feed my children I might accept the job of scrubbing toilets for a dollar an hour, and I might even act grateful in order to keep it, but don't expect a person to feel privileged to get a job just because their situation forces them to take it.

 

I'm not a snob about work, and I've been grateful to work in a backyard job cutting rags for $3 an hour, but the gratitude was because they were nice people and I could have my kiddies there with me in an environment that was healthy for them. A "proper" job at the time would have netted me less because of transport and childcare costs.

 

However some jobs offered are demeaning and underpaid, with bosses feeling nothing but contempt for their workers, who are squeezed like oranges and then dumped, as there are plenty more where they came from.

[jackson33]

you and Hollywood, in a portrayal of a sweat shop, forget, those folks are their by choice if a legal shop. generally they are in countries or areas where cost of living is low to begin with, few jobs and the folks grateful to receive any wage.

 

a person moving from NYC where the cost to get from point A to B, is 2.00 a minute, to park a car 10-25K a year and the cheapest matchbox to live in cost 6-800 or more per month, to a place where everything is with in walking distance, parking is always free and a nice home can be owned or rented for 200 a month are not comparably. government and opinions are generally based on urban conditions, however to be in this position again is a choice.

 

during the great depression, 60 to 80 percent of the people had jobs of sorts. the pay was not great, however and again the cost of living was very low. keep in mind, the bater system was very much used as people worked or traded products rather than cash. the work programs by government, really did little to end the period and did get some projects BACK on line, which had been suspended earlier. this period also the birth of socialism in the US, was ended by the slow natural increase in business activity and WWII.

[Sisyphus]

...Hollywood?

[JohnB]

As has been said, the opportunity for a job could be classified as a "right", getting one is another matter.

a job is the responsibility of any individual, to prepare for and acquire. any employer has the total discretion to employ or not any person and this should always be the rule. like wise this employer should maintain the right to upgrade, reward or fire this person at any desired time. in my opinion this should be for any reason, that employer or decision maker so decides.

A little bit too broad I think, if a large company gets a manager that believes all women should be in the home, it gives him the ability to fire someone on non-economic grounds. IMO, all terminations should be for economic reasons.

NB. Severe personality clashes lead to lower productivity and therefore removing the cause of the clash is an economic reason.

 

I would expect that for most people their views on this topic are dependent on the prevailing economic climate. For my take, it is the governments responsibility to attempt to ensure the lowest unemployment rate possible.

 

When unemployment is high, the worker is bidding for the job which leads to poor conditions and low pay. When unemployment is low, the employers are bidding for the workers which leads to higher pay and better conditions.

 

My own industry, Exhibitions, is realising this now. Because it really began in an era of high unemployment, there was the attitude of "Well if you don't like it, go away. There's plenty more who want to work for us." This attitude no longer works. Because we work very irregular hours we are finding that nobody wants to work for us. All the good people already have jobs and so we are having to make do with the dregs ( druggies, you name it). We need good people and the only way to attract them is to raise pay and conditions.

[geoguy]

Where we live the world has been turned upside down. Every store, business, service is crying out for workers. If you have a pulse you can get a good quality job.

 

The police department goes to England to recruit..national parks are short of rangers...ski hill have no staff...the city can't get bus drivers...

 

Folks pour into Alberta but thousands are gobbled up by the energy sector. 20 year olds earning over a hundred thousand a year and all types of daily allowances and perks on top of that. Crazy.

 

At least 9 out of 10 businesses will hire you in an instant. You can set your own hours...part time...full time...over time. There's even cash incentives to sign up. One restaurant gives the workers an extra week long vacation to Mexico if they stay for a year....most just give continued cash incentives at six month intervals.

 

What a contrast to when I was a struggling student years ago. I'd knock on doors seeking a couple hours work doing anything. Now workers go from employer to employer seeking out the best offer.

[foodchain]

So we took survival, and standardized it into some acceptable form people are to abide by, then it should work for them right? If not why not and what will the result be?

 

I don’t think it can be reduced down to simply an on or off function. I mean we do make a society that has patterns or ways of life. You can do private enterprise in which you can lose or win, and its the same with a job. The reality as I see it is we have standardized in a great deal the ways you conduct life, and if you take that away from a person but keep the system the same what is a person to do? Its sort of like denying work to a certain sect of people based on gender or skin color.

 

The other flipside of it is making sure people do not view it as something giving. Jobs should be for people, and available, but if you happen to be a failure then you should also be able to be fired. So its more or less if its a right and to what extent to me, the extent part gets lost in transmission I think.

 

Such as a double felon with a history of violent assaults. How many people would want to hire someone like that on this board? Not many I would wager, but then when that person is faced with obviously what people think about him or her, what are they to do at that point to survive? Living things regardless are bound by the "law" of surviving, so if you want to make a system of law and rule that is to encompass people, which also means this, then it should have to work I would think or you end up with some kind of a "failure" really, such as food riots or high crime.

 

Now right to work to me also does not mean right to have your dream job, or a high paying job or a job with benefits and so on, and of course again like my main point it does seem to really be far more of a complex issue then just do you have the right to work or not.

 

Lastly when getting into a crux of a libertarian society such is utterly a pipedream overall. No one is going to allow life to be a free for all on every level, and if you did it would quickly develop armies, police and drug stores with localized places in which to purchase flesh for consumption. So going with that in mind I do appreciate individual freedom to a point in which the actions are within the individual, such as drugs being legal, all fine until a person does something stupid on the drug, its the same with anything. People are not born in handcuffs but they are free to put themselves there.

 

If we say a job is not a right, then ultimately what its saying is anyone can hire or not hire anyone they want, and I think giving social issues alone that would lead to very negative situations, like what feminism comes from and groups like the Black Panthers. If a person cannot live within the American system, it’s a basic denial of any other right then in my opinion, if we standardize the way of life that is. Equality is not an easy thing, but when you take it away it historically in my opinion seems to only lead to tragic events in our history also, collectively as a specie or a race.