Subject:
|
Re: Property Rights are the foundation of freedom
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 May 2003 07:41:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
322 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes:
>
> > What is the difference between ensuring workers' don't die at work from an
> > industrial accident and ensuring that workers' don't die at work from
> > starvation?
> >
> > Or for that matter, ensuring workers' don't die from an industrial accident
> > caused by overwork and fatigue and malnutrition.
>
> Are you saying that an employer is now not only responsible for providing a
> wage, and safe work environment, but now also has a responsibility to assure
> that their employees are properly fed and rested?
No, I am not saying anything. I am asking what the difference is.
> If this is the case should
> a man with six children recieve a higher wage than a single man? He has a
> higher need. Let's assume an employer takes on that responsibility, now are
> they to test each worker to ensure that he has eaten a properly balanced
> meal?
Yet (some) employers do test their employees for drugs and fatigue and
physical capacity to carry out tasks. Why not test for (say) malnutrition,
when it's going to potentially effect performance and safety?
> If working for a particular employer does not
> net your family enough money to provide for your family, get a different
> job, it really is that simple.
That's provided there *is* another job to get (and textile works can't
generally become computer programmers overnight, for example.)
And a job that keeps your family alive for a bit longer - is probably better
than none at all.
<snip>
> I agree in that certain jobs require a higher amount of risk. Police and
> firemen, roadside workers, underwater welders, javelin catchers (alright I
> made that last one up) all take a great risk daily to perform their duties,
> and as such should be better compensated. A factory that disregards
> reasonable safety precautions for any reason should be held 100%
> responsible, no matter what country it is in.
What if the worker doesn't mind taking the risk? What if an employer pays
the worker extra to take the risk?
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
30 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
