But this is an ethical call, not a legal one. And the law will always over rule ethics.
We need to change the laws to make corporations "family friendly" like mandatory 4 week vacations, better family leave compensation, and Medicare for All. Corporations are essentially sociopaths and have to be forced to have emapthy.
> We need to change the laws to make corporations "family friendly"
If the will was there, we could also simply exert that as a condition on employment. You don't really need laws when you can just do what the law is going to have you do anyway.
The problem is that the will isn't there. Only around half of the population are in what this thread seems to consider a family, so you are fighting against the wants of the other half who find their family-less situation, where they don't have the same "family friendly" concerns to worry about, to be a business advantage. That means it is hard to exert as a condition of employment and for the same reason hard to turn it into law.
I suspect that it would be possible to mobilize the bloc of families as a more unified group than singles, which would influence the policy and law making calculus
> which would influence the policy and law making calculus
Along with negotiations in the workplace. But this is all hypothetical. It could theoretically be done, but it is unlikely it will be done. Even amongst families, there isn't a whole lot of desire to do it. Don't let comments on the internet fool you. Talk is cheap.
Corporations don’t need to have empathy to make deals with the benefits you mention, they just need counter-parties which prioritize those terms. Medicare has little to do with corporations (which usually don’t like having to spend time and money on health insurance), and many/most would be happy to be relieved of the obligation. With respect to more vacation time, we’ve reached the current equilibrium because government has enacted standards which encourage ‘anchoring’, and most people prefer extra wages over vacation. Much like with airline seats, the companies are giving people what they want.
Sociopathy is characterized by a lack of empathy. Regardless, the only way to make a deal stick is to ensure it is beneficial to all parties.
Healthcare definitely impacts workers, but the only reason for widespread employer-provided healthcare in the USA is the tax exemption. This is not an employer-driven phenomenon.
I am talking about revealed preferences; it’s not a real preference if you are not willing to give something up for it. Extra vacation time comes at a cost in productivity and availability, which aren’t free, so your friends want their employers to give them something for nothing.
> so your friends want their employers to give them something for nothing.
The presented alternative (written by you, oddly enough) was extra wages without vacation. His friends aren't wanting something for nothing. He asserts that they are willing to give up the apparent extra wages coming their way in exchange for vacation.
More vacation for the same pay can be interpreted at least three ways:
- Same annual income for fewer days worked. This is increased daily pay
- Same daily pay for fewer days worked. This is actually increased daily compensation, because of how vacation pay accrual works (you’d have to be accruing at a higher rate).
- Same daily pay with fewer days worked, and same number of paid vacation days, along with additional unpaid vacation days. This one is the only interpretation which does not come with increased compensation per unit of work.
Two of these financially benefit the employee, and none of the three benefit the employer.
What alternative are you considering where the friends are actually giving the employer anything?
> More vacation for the same pay can be interpreted at least three ways:
If you read it in complete isolation, fine. But it wasn't written in isolation. It was clearly written alongside a hypothetical offer of extra wages as per the context of discussion. Accepting the extra wages would not equate to the same pay. That would be higher pay by any reasonable interpretation.
> What alternative are you considering where the friends are actually giving the employer anything?
If you really need it mechanically spelled out, imagine you are paid $x, accept an additional $y (the extra wages), then give $y back to the employer in exchange for vacation. $y is what is given to the employer. In actuality you would skip some steps because they are pointless in practice, but the outcome is the same.
We need to change the laws to make corporations "family friendly" like mandatory 4 week vacations, better family leave compensation, and Medicare for All. Corporations are essentially sociopaths and have to be forced to have emapthy.