Hacker News Reader

Comment by jahaja | Hacker News Reader

This is the good old, but ultimately petty, Pyrrhic victory of wanting to make sure to punish the few freeloaders.

I'm in favor of allowing people to live without needing to work. I understand that there needn't be a job for every person in the world. I'm aware that nobody should have to work 40 hours a week anymore.

I'm open to a system that allows all of these things to happen.

However - applying that system on a micro scale (one workplace at a time, through unions) introduces way too much friction between employers and their employees, employees and their peers, and employers and unions.

It also causes an internal conflict for the employee - where they have to mask their lack of contribution by busywork, ultimately feeling unfulfilled in their life.

Unionizing all workplaces is a sub-optimal means to distribute wealth.

How would you go about achieving these things through this conflict averse approach? I find it naive at best, and it's firmly in the best interests of business. I mean, this is why corporations in the US (and elsewhere) have fought tooth and nail against unions and labour movements for its entire history and continue to do so. Comparing the welfare systems and labour laws & benfits to western Europe shows the result of this.

Of course you want them punished when you have to pick up their slack.

I've worked with people who would have produced more for the company collecting their paycheck and just not showing up to work. Don't let the freeloaders distract you, and maybe let the ball drop occasionally so they HAVE to catch it, or prove they can't anymore. Let them hang themselves, no need to punish!

Well, Pyrrhic implies that I think it's too great a cost because you'll take down the people with social issues (and more) along with the much fewer obvious freeloaders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com