Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisseaton | Hacker News Reader

> I don't see anything wrong with worker protections

As long as people can opt-out then it's fine. Otherwise I think there is something wrong with it: if two consenting adults want to send work emails to each other after 5pm what business is that of yours?

View on HN

two consenting adults

Bait-and-switch alert! Most economic relations are not between 'two consenting adults' of equal economic power engaged in equitable contractual arrangements for mutual advantage.

If people can opt out, then this gives the opportunity for the business owner to make opting out a requirement to get the job. Then you may as well not have the protection at all. You can't opt out of:

- minimum wages

- OSHA

- discrimination protection

- etc.

There's no special reason why you should be able to opt out of this work hour regulation. Now if the regulation is overall a bad idea, that's a separate question.

Yes it's a fundamental philosophical problem isn't it. Protecting people by taking away their freedoms. A tricky balance and you can see how people come down on either side of it.

Bullshit. 'Taking away their freedom's is an extremely inaccurate characterization of employment regulation. The reality is trying to protect employees by taking away the freedom of employers to exploit them. You're trying to shift the loss of freedom onto employees, and effectively saying they're losing the right to enter into bad deals out of short-term necessity - the old fallacy of the rich as well as the poor being 'free' to sleep under bridges while ignoring the fact that virtually nobody chooses to do that if they have other options available.

It's protecting the commons. As an individual it might make sense for me to opt out of those regulations because I can get a job easier or command a higher wage. This only works if most people follow the regulations. The problem is when companies make opting out a de facto part of the deal and then individuals are no longer getting a benefit from their choices but are forced into it

Yes I think I'd agree in practice. I was really replying to the 'nothing wrong with it' assertion. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with it and we should acknowledge we're taking away people's freedom, but it's probably an acceptable trade-off in practice.

Well we'll place you on the defeatist side. Please stand down then when the rest of us try to argue for progress by enshrining new rights and not tossing them up in the air.

No I'm the optimist! I hope people can be left to work out their own arrangements amicably. But accept we aren't there yet so support a little nudge here and there. You're the defeatist - assuming they can't and stepping in to force them to do it your way instead.

Work out own arrangements indeed. That's what the infuriating "Right-to-Know" laws are for. You have as an employee the right to know about the hazards of the chemicals you are working with. But you do not have a right to proper safety equipment or training. It's enshrining a race to the bottom that does nothing to improve workplace safety.

Oh and you can opt out of OSHA and minimum wages - by joining the military (Executive Order 12196).

I suppose that it makes sense that the only employer in the country that needs to be able to (legally) routinely put its "employees" in mortal peril would have a carve-out from the health and safety regulations.

Never thought about it that way. The problem is that the military has socialized medicine so it's not good for libertarians either.

An exception that proves a rule if ever there were one.

> As long as people can opt-out then it's fine.

Not quite. If people can opt-out, then the ones that have little leverage against their (potential) employer -- precisely the ones that need this protection the most -- will be screwed over.

Where should be the line drawn on what two consenting adults agree to? Also, is "consent" and "adult" actually well defined?

> Where should be the line drawn on what two consenting adults agree to?

It seems to me the line of what you allow people to consent to should probably be pretty far beyond 'reading an email'! But yes it's fundamentally problematic issue of how we choose to run a society.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com