From: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Vote for 3rd party/no-party candidates!!!
Date: 11 Oct 92 14:51:33 GMT
Reply-To: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH


In a previous article, mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor) says:

>In article <1992Oct9.233958.8835@news.ysu.edu> ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben) writes:
>>
>>In a previous article, mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor) says:
>>
>> {Decreasing work hours always increases productivity}
>>
>>If there were a law, however, the company who wanted higher standards
>>to be more productive would have help policing his recalcitrant 
>>competitors.
>>
>In other words, the increase in productivity, if any, is not offset by
>the increased costs of hiring more workers, paying more payroll 
>taxes and health benefits, &c.  Companies that do attempt this
>need Big Brother to beat up more efficient companies.
>
This has been the historical experience in England for example with 
the 10 Hours Bill - in the U.S. with all social legislation including
the Wages and Hours Laws, the prohibitions against child labor,
unemployment laws and social security. If one depends on the 
voluntary efforts of companies one ends up with no social legislation
and with wages and hours at such a low level that there is no
incentive to install machinery.

>Seems to me like hours are something employers and employees are perfectly
>capable of working out for themselves.  When I was working my way

The U.S. Supreme Court in the decision in Holden vrs Hardy (169 U.S. 366)1898
explained why this is NOT something that employers and employees can
work out for themselves.

They wrote:

    "The legislature has also recognized the fact, which the experience
     of legislators in many states has corroborated, that the proprietors
     of these establishments and their operatives do not stand upon an
     equality, and that their interests are, to a certain extent, conflicting.
     The former naturally desire to obtain as much labor as possible from
     their employees, while the latter are often induced by fear of discharge
     to conform to the regulations which their judgment, fairly exercised,
     would pronounce to be detrimental to their health or strength.
     In other words, the proprietors lay down the rules and the laborers
     are practically constrained to obey them. In such cases self interest 
     is often an unsafe guide, and the legislature may promptly impose
     its authority.

>thorugh school, I was GLAD to get a job with 60 and 70 hour weeks,

An earlier part of the decision explains why there is often a need
for the society to pass a law that will protect the health and safety
of the people of that society - even if there will be reasons that the
individuals would do otherwise as you note above:

The decision explains:

    Though reasonable doubts may exist as to the power of the legislature
    to pass a law, or as to whether the law is calculated or adapted to 
    promote the health, safety, or comfort of the people, or to secure
    good order, or promote the general welfare, we must resolve them in favor
    of the right of that department of government."

You might feel you had to work in very unsafe working conditions because
you needed to save money to go to school - but hopefully you live in
a society where the government will ban these unsafe working conditions 
to prevent you from being hurt because you made a mistake.

Sadly in Michigan recently, a college student at Henry Ford Community
College was working during the summer at a job which was dangerous
and he ended up dying as a result of that. The problem was that the
enforcement of the health and safety laws in Michigan put him in
that position - and those who try to fight against such unsafe 
conditions are often penalized or left for years fighting in the 
courts. 

So somehow there is a need for laws that protect workers from the 
abuses that will develop otherwise.

>At other times in my life, I'd be happy working 15 or 20 hours and
>riding my bike or backpacking the rest of the time.


>
>If shorter hours are more productive, companies will implement them
>of their own accord.  If employees value more free time and somewhat

But basically companies don't  - just as they don't offer social 
security or unemployment on their own - those are social obligations
of the government of the society.

>less pay, they can negotiate that.  The UAW was nearly on a 4-day week

Are you referring to the paid personal days that were in the UAW
contracts in the 1970's (through 1982)? I don't know of 4-day weeks
expcept for 10 hour days for some companies - which is not really
an advance as far as I understand it.

But the paid personal days were an advance of sorts - and the result was
that the auto companies put in new machinery -and then fought to end the
paid personal days 


>for a while.  Why does the government need to mandate what consenting
>adults are willing to agree to?

The question assumes that employees and employers have the same interests -
not the conflicting interests that the Holden vrs Hardy Supreme Court
decision explained was the case and is the premise behind the need for
mandatory government regulation - behind the need for a legislature that
enacts laws, etc.

>-- 
>Don McGregor             | "I..I blame society.  Society made me  
>mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu|  what I am."
>

Ronda
-- 
Ronda Hauben                    email address:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Amateur Computerist Newsletter              or
P.O. Box 4344                   rhauben@heartland.bradley.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,alt.activism,comp.misc