Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

When a job is low skill, they have a huge pool of labor they can draw from. There really isn't any need to treat employees well, since there are so many applicants.

I think it is fairly simple. The more in-demand your skills are, the better you can expect to treated by your employer because you have options.

Is this 'right'? I don't know. But it seems to be how things work.



"There really isn't any need to treat employees well"

All you have to do is sell your soul and abandon your own humanity. Cheap, right? You can learn a lot about someone, or a culture, by seeing how they treat those less fortunate.


I didn't say I agree with that statement. But it certainly seems to reflect reality.

I personally believe that low-skill/pay workers should be treated better in this country. The important question is: How do we accomplish this? Mandates like higher min. wage? Or, societal pressures of some sort? It doesn't appear that (most) corporations will treat employees better out of the goodness of their heart.


That's the point of closed shops & unions, right? To limit the pool of labor contractually to force better working conditions...


But it is artificial. How can you strongarm management into paying you more what they would have to pay a non-union worker?

There are plenty of manufacturing examples where unions demand higher than market wages, and companies simply relocate operations.

BTW, both of my parents are union workers. I support their goals, but I think the idea of a union is outdated and ultimately counterproductive.


Then why is this Mr. "Stretch" citing virtue ethics as justification? He should just come out and admit that he's invoking Might Makes Right.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: