Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
Obviously.
They seem to expect companies to work for the employees instead of the employees working for the company.
The idea that the entry-level job pays as it does because the job doesn't *justify* higher pay doesn't seem to register. Or the idea that if the pay for manual labor were much higher it would only make alternative practices or locations (like robots or african labor + air shipment) more viable.
If you rely on state definition and enforcement of accepted labor practices, do *not* be surprised to see companies adhering to *exactly* what the state stipulates.
Anything else *is* utopianism.
"Come the revolution, we will have strawberry pie every day."
|
I have noticed that defenders of the status quo like to think of themselves as hard-nosed realists. On the contrary, they seem to me naïvely Panglossian, believing that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
By all means, let's demonize the companies that clearly want to get away with so much more than they're currently able to get away with by law. That would be a much more rational approach... and not frightening in the least.
If the point of this thread is that the world might be a better place if corporations were more invested in the welfare of their employees, then hell... I'm in. Bring on the renaissance! But I thought it was about whether or not Amazon should be singled out for particularly atrocious working conditions. If so, I've yet to see/read/hear any compelling evidence to that effect.
|
You are right, of course, but it is a rather feeble defence to claim that none should be taken to account when all are equally guilty.