In New Hampshire, a bill has been introduced to do away with the legal requirement that employers provide their employees with a lunch break. The rationale here is that every employer already does this, so why have the law?
“This is an unneeded law,” Jones said. “If I was to deny one of my employees a break, I would be in a very bad position with the company’s human resources representative. If you consider that this is a very easy law to follow in that everyone already does it, then why do we need it? Our constituents have already proven that they have enough common sense to do this on their own.”
Yes they have, because they have been following the law. But will they continue to do so absent the legal requirement?
Jones: “It’s in the company’s best interest if you’re not shaky and you’re well, to make sure you are healthy and well motivated.”
Indeed it is! And industry has a fantastic track record in this arena.
For example, they voluntarily embrace strict mine safety standards, voluntarily use the best materials, always follow good manufacturing and quality control practices, stop using faulty equipment, properly dispose of waste, etc. Why do we need regulations, when industry is doing such a good job!
520 Chestnut 
Remind me again why socialism and workers rights is a BAD thing in America? I mean, I’m no Tea Partier, but wasn’t the entire point of the worker’s rights movement in the early 20th century so that companies were required to think about their workers? Isn’t that the entire purpose of a labor union, which again, the GOP hates?
Maybe I really am just lost in space, here on planet Socialist.
People seem to forget (not know in the first place?) history. They think all of these unions and regulations were always there, and thus not needed. But they exist for a reason! Some event occurred that necessitated them. Some of the things I linked to above on the regulatory side, and events like the triangle fire on the union side. These things did not just spring into existence for no reason.
Regarding the NH anti-lunch legislation, Jones seems to be arguing that if a company denies its workers lunch, no one will want to work for that company, and thus it will fail. The perfect free market response! But unemployment is high! People can’t afford to leave their jobs over a grievance like lunch. Protections for workers are needed now more than any other time in recent history, to prevent employers from taking advantage of their employees desperation.
The “Free-Market” is a myth. There is no such thing as a free market. The roads they use – socialist. The police and fire they use – socialist. The educated workforce – socialist. The government investment for business startup – socialist. The programs in place to help businesses grow – socialist. The regulations to protect American investment and technology – socialist.
Tell me again what’s so free in this market, when everything a company uses is part of the shared-community of taxpayers?
I don’t think Id go so far as to say the free market is a myth, but I think it definitely is not what many seem to think it is. Pure free market libertarians like Ron Paul will tell you that, no matter the problem, the free market can solve it. Is a company destroying the environment? No worries, if that isn’t accepted by the market then the company will fail and if it is, then it isn’t a problem. But that doesn’t change science. It doesn’t help anyone. It’s just an excuse, a way to wrap up a “let corporations do whatever the hell they want” attitude in a pretty freedom-bow. I think market forces are important, but they are not magical. They are not the solution to everything. They need ti exist, but be constrained to prevent abuse, and protect consumers. At the end of the day, there is little you or I can do in the face of a giant corporation, regardless of whether or not we are in the right.
Have you watched “The Corporation”? If you haven’t I highly recommend it.
The aspect of companies being larger than governments, as they can flow across national borders with ease, and often times operate in multiple nations at once restricts the ability of any one government or national agency to truly regulate or enforce laws against the company.
In the US, ethical situations are viewed as financial decisions. Is it cheaper to follow the rules, or to break the rules, pay the fine, and handle the PR costs? In this scenario, which plays out constantly, the decisions made are all financial. BP’s handling of the Deepwater Horizon is a very big example. Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobile, Apple, Microsoft… each has had some problem with US officials, and paid the fine rather than the costs of prevention.
Excellent point. It often is cheaper to pay the fine than to follow the rules. But not for the person who gets hurt because of whatever you were fined for! Who is looking out for them? Or is it just their bad luck for daring to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?