Is Employment A Human Right?
Richard A. Epstein writes at Hoover.org:
Risa Kaufman, the Director of the Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute, ... claims that "the United States' failure to enact meaningful protections enabling workers to accommodate the demands of work and family is not only out of step with countries around the world, but it is also counter to international human rights standards."This "failure" is also a huge relief. Bad as our own national employment situation is, it would be far worse if the United States acted in line with those misguided countries throughout the world that now endure unemployment rates that touch or exceed, as in the case of Spain, 25 percent precisely because they seek to secure this phalanx of workplace protections as a matter of public law.
To be sure, innovative employers may adopt some types of worker protections to keep able women employees in the workforce, whether in the form of child-care benefits, flex time or split positions. But it is one thing for a particular employer to adopt these policies, and quite another for a heavy-handed political entity to impose them on employers who think that these purported benefits are not in line with their best business interests.
In these cases, employers' unwillingness to offer these protections is well-nigh conclusive evidence that the cost of the disputed benefits package exceeds the gains for his or her employee. If the situation were otherwise, the benefit would be included, as is routinely the case with the thousands of perks that particular employers offer to all or some of their employees. What explanation other than market demand could explain why so many employers offer benefits packages that go far beyond international minimums or local law?
The situation reverses when such benefits packages are required as a matter of law. At this point, firms divide themselves into two categories. Those that would have provided the benefit anyway will continue to do so. But they will do so less efficiently than before, as they will lose the power of self-correction and must incur the oft-heavy compliance costs to satisfy the prying eyes of government regulators. Wages will fall as compliance costs rise and the two sides are left with the unhappy task of dividing a shrunken pie in order to implement what Kaufman calls these "widely accepted human rights norms."
via @overlawyered
Preventing employment, or preventing someone the ability to sustain themselves and their family I can see as a violation of human rights.
But prior to our enlightened age, requiring the employer to provide benefits beyond pay and a reasonably safe working conditions was unheard of.
Now they are saying the employer should be responsible for the employee's family conditions? I can see it to a point with the military, but if you're a civilian, hell no.
Jim P. at February 28, 2013 8:51 AM
We're in grave danger of over-defining what is a "basic human right."
Paid healthcare is a basic human right.
Paid family leave is a basic human right.
Equal pay with someone better educated, trained, or qualified is a basic human right.
A college degree is a basic human right.
Conan the Grammarian at February 28, 2013 9:45 AM
Dood…
• Ferrari.
• Sex w/starlets.
• Bluefin sushi.
• Ocean Views.
• Archtops.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 28, 2013 10:04 AM
You have the right to demand that your job be offshored to China, India, or replaced by a machine. Tenured academics tend to ignore reality, because they don't live it.
MarkD at February 28, 2013 10:22 AM
all I can see is it's a way to remove competitive advantage, and that is the purpose of it...
couple with the trophies for particiapting in the game, and we can make everyone the same... every job the same, all pay the same...
...to each according to their needs.
I'd agree to Crid's list, but substitute a Leica M6 for the guitar, since I suck at guitars, even though they are beautiful.
I think we could swing a substitution, eh, comrade?
SwissArmyD at February 28, 2013 10:24 AM
We're in grave danger of over-defining what is a "basic human right."
This. So this.
You'd be amazed at the arguments I've had with seemingly intelligent people who believe that free healthcare, college, and what they think the minimum wage should be as a "human right". I get accused of hating poor people/blacks/liberals/immigrants/parents/women/children/anyone that argues for this type of thinking people all the time.
No. It's not. These are "entitlements". You can't convince the die hard Libs or Feminazi's of this.
Sabrina at February 28, 2013 10:32 AM
If one person has a "human right" to something then another person must be saddled with the "human obligation" to supply it.
In the non bizarro world this obligation is known as theft.s
Jay at February 28, 2013 10:46 AM
> I think we could swing a substitution, eh, comrade?
'Zactly— Swissy understands this perfectly.
If we have to reach out into the world, find each other, and barter for mutually-satisfactory terms of trade (camera for guitar), we have essentially sought and found employment... And embraced the quintessence of capitalism. We did it ourselves, and we didn't need our butts wiped and our foreheads kissed by others for making the effort.
Every political scheme worth believing and every God worth praying to share this insight about society: You are here to make others happy and to be made happy in return.
Never whine to me that others didn't do it on your behalf. It's a contradiction in terms, in both economics and cosmology.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 28, 2013 10:53 AM
So Jimpers is right:
> Preventing employment, or preventing someone
> the ability to sustain themselves and their family
> I can see as a violation of human rights.
Decent government stays out of the way.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 28, 2013 10:55 AM
Don't forget iPhones!
Sosij at February 28, 2013 12:50 PM
And six-bedroom government-paid houses custom-built for lifelong welfare moms with 11 kids because, hey, it's crowded in there.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9877213/Mother-of-11-gets-custom-built-super-council-house.html
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 28, 2013 4:27 PM
Crid: "Every political scheme worth believing and every God worth praying to share this insight about society: You are here to make others happy and to be made happy in return."
I love that! Thanks.
Ken R at February 28, 2013 4:46 PM
"Is Employment A Human Right?"
I've always thought of it as kind of a necessary evil.
Ken R at February 28, 2013 4:50 PM
> I love that! Thanks.
Coulda gone with Every economy worth paying taxes to and" etc.
Either way, if it turns up on dorm room posters in 2030, please remember where it came from.
Also, I fucking meant it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 28, 2013 6:27 PM
I also consider states the aren't right to work (union required) bad as well.
e.g. Hostess.
Jim P. at February 28, 2013 6:57 PM
If its a human right to work, wouldnt that make the bakers union and the democrats who supported them human rights abusers?
lujlp at February 28, 2013 7:43 PM
The next question is "If Employment is a human right, are certain types of employment a human right? Or rather, not having have certain types?"
Say it is, then does paying someone $7/hr (~min. wage) to dig a ditch meet that requirement?
The Former Banker at February 28, 2013 8:02 PM
The problem is that a required minimum wage. If Company B says we will pay experienced ditch diggers $7.75 an hour and non-experienced ditch diggers $7.00 an hour that is perfectly legal.
If Company A says we will pay all ditch diggers $7.40 an hour regardless of experience that is also legal.
The question then becomes is there a fair definition of "experienced ditch diggers" in Company B. If there is then no problem.
But dictating it from the government is wrong.
Jim P. at February 28, 2013 10:01 PM
So its a human rights violation to fire someone? This will end well.
Shtetl G at March 1, 2013 10:41 AM
Leave a comment