This article was originally posted at http://www.menzieshouse.com.au
“Your rights at work” words that in 2007 brought down the Howard government. The idea that an individual statutory contract could remove pay and condition guaranteed under industrial awards and enterprise bargaining agreements was enough to get voters to take a chance on Labor. The idea that access to service or minimum conditions are “rights” has become so ingrained in our society that almost no one has challenged the notion that such conditions are rights or seriously raised the question do such rights violate peoples’ more fundamental rights.
This issue can be understood by comparing positive rights with negative rights. From the 20th century on, the definition of what could be considered a right has changed from negative rights which protect individual freedom, such as free speech, the right to a fair trial or the right to enter a contract to positive rights, such as the right to an education or healthcare. The problem with positive rights is that unlike negative rights they aren’t a person’s by birth. Positive rights usually require some restriction on another person’s freedom. For example, for me to have the right to education, that by definition forces someone else to pay for it. By comparison the right free speech is mine and all that right does is protect me from someone taking that right away from me.
If one accepts individual freedom as basis for all rights, then workers’ rights cannot be consider rights in the traditional sense. In fact, minimum wages and awards significantly restrict individual freedom. If I wanted to start a career working for a consulting firm but my current skill set doesn’t justify the minimum pay required by industrial regulation then my freedom and the freedom of the employer would have been significantly restricted. Most likely the outcome would be that I would remain unemployed.
A more relevant example to many disadvantaged jobseekers is the Food, Beverage and Tobacco Manufacturing Award 2010 which covers most jobs in the hospitality sector. Under this award it is illegal to pay someone less than $17.88 an hour for an adult employed in a casual capacity. While this may seem to be a small amount to many of us, for some people entering the labour market with insufficient education or life skills this can be a major barrier to employment. For example, someone who has never worked before may need constant supervision, in reality the time spent supervising this person initially may exceed the value of their labour. Preventing such a jobseeker from working at a price an employer is willing to employ them for is violation of their basic right to sell their labour and to enter into contracts.
Much of the industrial relations debate has been framed in the context of international competitiveness and profitability. These arguments have fundamentally missed the point. Employers have no more right to cheap labour then employees have rights to high wages. Ultimately, both parties should be free to pursue their self-interest. The argument against restrictive industrial relations regulations should be argued on the basis of individual freedom.
customs and standards are very different even in neighbouring countries- in Italy, it is considered normal for new employees to not be paid anything for one year, until they have learned enough about the business to be useful! I doubt if that idea would go down here…
My coder is trying to convince me to move to .net from PHP.
I have always disliked the idea because of the costs.
But he’s tryiong none the less. I’ve been using Movable-type on a variety of websites for about a year
and am concerned about switching to another platform.
I have heard fantastic things about blogengine.net. Is there a way I can
transfer all my wordpress content into it? Any kind
of help would be really appreciated!
I think that such an argument does take the issue of libertarianism towards its absurd conclusion. With the decoupling of currency from the gold standard, the money we make is essentially worthless – being no more than a promissory IOU from the incumbent government, and therefore subject to the fluctuations in value that a fiat currency has and, frankly, extremely fragile in a small-government nation. In a world where an individual is ostensibly competing with foreign individuals who have access to wildly different costs of living and access to loans etc at vastly lower rates of interest using currencies that can fluctuate almost chaotically, there must be some mechanism in place to ensure that competition is transparent and that all factors are taken into account.
There is a saying that you never get what you deserve -you only get what you can negotiate. However to negotiate the true value of your goods or services in good faith it is necessary for you to have transparent data about what everyone else is bidding. Even the stock market has this mechanism with its bid/offer system. This is not reflected at all in the labour market where in some instances it is a terminatible offence to share such data with one’s colleagues.
In a fiat currency world the numbers thrown around in a bid are meaningless because nothing bid is pinned to a tangible, exchangeable asset which has innate value independently of the government.
Further, there will always be some people who would gladly offer themselves as literal slaves simply for food, water, shelter and nothing else – a practice which would completely undermine an humane society but oddly enough would not violate human rights.
Reductio ad absurdum this would revert society to a feudal system at best, one greatly in contrast and indeed the polar opposite of a libertarian society.
True libertarianism only exists in a prosperous and more egalitarian society. Anarchy is the name of what were to happen at worst if ALL control mechanisms were removed. Anarchy always eats itself with the jaws of freedom – guns, muscles and rage.
I am very much a civil libertarian and believe that individual freedom in ones civil life ought to have primacy over every argument without qualification. However, individual freedom does not extend do far as to allow the exploitation of ones fellow in the interests of fiscal freedom. That is a recipe for disaster and a race to the bottom for poor individuals and those from a birth of disadvantage, and even a race to monopoly at the top, as without regulation the big fish will consume the little, the middle fish competing violently for the scraps. In other words, a king and his lords, then the peasants
I’m really impressed along with your writing skills and also with the format in your weblog. Is this a paid topic or did you customize it your self? Anyway keep up the excellent quality writing, it’s rare to see a nice blog like this one nowadays..