I’ve always found the language in these cases to be severe so I get your reaction and agree in some ways, but it’s also not as simple as you’re making it out to be.
If I am your employer and I know you don’t really have any viable options/are economically insecure, I can put the squeeze on you because I know if I lay you off or you quit your life could be ruined. I know that the threat of you losing your job is going to drastically increase your tolerance for what I can ask of you. That is not a very tenable situation and it’s one a lot of people experience, whether their employer knowingly does it or not.
It’s not a fair power dynamic at the end of the day. In that case it’s true - my employer can force me to do a lot of things I would otherwise not agree to.
For an even less severe example, think of how many people have had to say the phrase “I can’t say no, I will lose my job.” In an ideal world you would be able to apply “the free market” to bad jobs, but in reality it’s nothing like that in the slightest except in very narrow cases and usually for a temporary duration, especially in the US where losing your job means you (and possibly your family) losing healthcare or otherwise being unable to pay your premiums. Many people simply can’t walk no matter how much pressure and abuse is applied to them. Hence “wage slave” as a term.
We were talking about a boss who made passive aggressive remarks. And that it was unfair that people could not stop working. I just pointed out that the responsibility of the social protection could not fall on the shoulders of individual employers.
We have created trade unions, works councils and labor laws to protect against the most egregious abuses of power. Many countries have a social safety net. All of these are good things.
I just don't see how one can argue in good faith that "not working" (the original point) should be a human right, guaranteed by society without any condition. On a macro-economic level how would that work?
We’re not just talking about that specific instance anymore - I agree that’s clearly not “slavery” - the scope has clearly expanded into a larger issue about the power dynamics between employers and employees and how it can (and does) lead to compulsion/abuse.
> We have created trade unions, works councils and labor laws to protect against the most egregious abuses of power. Many countries have a social safety net. All of these are good things.
You may have them where you live but we do not have nearly as robust systems in the US. All of these systems are notoriously weak here and are trending weaker with each year for the last 60 years or so. For some light context: less than 10% of the US workforce is unionized, I believe it’s closer to 4% in the private center but I would need to doublecheck. Most Americans don’t even know what a “work council” is and our current NLRB is a joke. Combined with our very weak social safety nets and it’s easy to see how precarious the situation is for many people here.
Depending on which article/study you want to believe, roughly between 35% and 50% of the US workforce fears retaliation in the workplace for speaking up. That is a very high percentage of people and is indicative to me of a very unhealthy workplace power dynamic.
Well the vibe I am getting from testing22321 is more one of "there should be unconditional support from society". See the points about free education and (supposed) unlimited benefits in Autralia. As said, it's not that I am against them, I just don't see how as a matter of practicality that would work on a societal scale.
I know the current situation in the US. So if you want to argue that the US has in general a poor social safety net, find someone who disagrees with you. In my mind, as long as Americans see themselves as "temporarily embarassed millionaires" living in the "greatest country on earth", and keep voting against their own interest, I don't see that changing any time soon.
The situation in the US is not as you described in your previous comment. That’s why I felt the need to explain the woefully inadequate safety nets and worker protections we have here.
I feel like you’re conflating some things here and oversimplifying poverty/under-employment, but we can just move on. Suffice to say I don’t agree with your assessment of the root causes here.
If I am your employer and I know you don’t really have any viable options/are economically insecure, I can put the squeeze on you because I know if I lay you off or you quit your life could be ruined. I know that the threat of you losing your job is going to drastically increase your tolerance for what I can ask of you. That is not a very tenable situation and it’s one a lot of people experience, whether their employer knowingly does it or not.
It’s not a fair power dynamic at the end of the day. In that case it’s true - my employer can force me to do a lot of things I would otherwise not agree to.
For an even less severe example, think of how many people have had to say the phrase “I can’t say no, I will lose my job.” In an ideal world you would be able to apply “the free market” to bad jobs, but in reality it’s nothing like that in the slightest except in very narrow cases and usually for a temporary duration, especially in the US where losing your job means you (and possibly your family) losing healthcare or otherwise being unable to pay your premiums. Many people simply can’t walk no matter how much pressure and abuse is applied to them. Hence “wage slave” as a term.