Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died • Hacker News Board

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#121

Post by CryptoPunk » Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 8:19 PM UTC

sushid wrote: post #112

CryptoPunk wrote: post #110

If you impose mandatory higher standards for pay, benefits and training on temp employment agencies, a great many of these jobs will simply cease to exist. Given they're employing some of the most resource-challenged people, such a social intervention is liable to cause far more harm than good. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

Not sure if you read the article, but no one is talking about a higher standards for pay and benefits. You're literally making generic libertarian points. The only direct criticism is that they don't enforce their own safety guidelines which leads to the death of their workers. A great many of these jobs can continue to exist even if their managers simply request those with loose garbs or improper safety shoes, etc.…

A lot of people are talking about higher mandatory standards in the wake of this report, most importantly Ontario's Labour Minister:

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/09/11/temp-work...

Publicity of the working conditions and pay of low-skilled workers invariably leads to calls for more stringent mandatory standards, as if you can outlaw poverty and low-living standards.

>>Unless the onus of taking on such check was so great that they suddenly decide to put all their money into R&D, these jobs will continue to exist.

The effect is on the margins. No single mandate will have a significant impact, but each one adds costs, and in the aggregate, they have a significant effect on economic growth, which is a compounding effect that translates to massive long-term effects.

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#122

Post by _5ysi » Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 8:28 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #119

_5ysi wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we mostly agree on most things were talking about. >> I don't think that economic parity across nations should be a primary goal of any nation's policy, but I do think it is basically an inevitable, positive side effect of trade. > This should definitely be a goal of anyone who cares about alleviating global poverty and suffering. Agreed it is very admirable to spend your wealth, time, or influence in a ways…

> Agreed it is very admirable to spend your wealth, time, or influence in a ways that alleviate real poverty around the world. However I don't think it is in the contract between citizens of a nation that their taxes should be spent on this to a large extent. Yes and no. You're right, a government should provide mainly for its own people. However the stability of the whole world is important for national security and…

> Yes and no. You're right, a government should provide mainly for its own people. However the stability of the whole world is important for national security and national prosperity.

Again agreed, I think Nixon was the greatest recent president because he opened China and we are all still alive today.

> The main problem is that mass immigration isn't a real solution, Europe and the US/Canada can't support the entire world's population.

Agreed.

> It's because the money isn't generally used as an investment, but rather minimum wage workers from the US/Canada send back money to their families, which merely supplements their income. On a whole the influx of money drives up prices, without contributing much to development.

I'm not sure I see the logic to this. I guess the extra flow of American dollars into the country would make industrial exports more expensive, so perhaps that 1 job in America would cost the developing nation a fraction of a new factory job at home. Not really sure I see the net downside though (from POV of developing nation). Also this sounds like it would cause deflation in the developing nation, not inflation.

> If you look at statistics as well, it's not the countries with the most ex-pats (and I mean as a percentage of population, not in absolute numbers) that are growing the quickest, but rather countries with a stable rule of law which make investment more attractive (and re-investment by those within the country).

Are these two things mutually exclusive and how are they correlated? That's what I was trying to suggest, wondering if expats get to vote.

> The problem is that as capital (and land) gets concentrated in fewer hands, the income earned from capital outpaces the income earned from labour, resulting in lower relative wealth for the labour side of the equation. Thomas Piketty explains this well, and has amassed a seriously impressive set of data to back up all his assertions.

I can't dismiss Piketty's work but his data was all collected in the context of the current economic system, which I think has several flaws that negate overreaching conclusions (IDK if they are his conclusions or media's reporting). Namely the exponential-without-limit monetary inflation of fiat currencies by western governments. Also land is a fixed resource so the appropriate way to fix this is really simple and well established: property taxes. If technology advances to the point that capital is basically free and labor is basically worthless...it doesn't really matter if the ratio stayed the same, IMO. At that point it will just matter how attractive, funny, creative, and good at sports you are.

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#123

Post by _5ysi » Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 8:40 PM UTC

otakucode wrote: post #100

_5ysi wrote: post #40

Having worked at two manufacturers in the Midwest, anecdotally the majority of forklift drivers, line workers on specific lines, and even many white collar office roles were filled by temp agencies. A similar structure existed for engineering too; we would have a problem and the engineering firm with workers under the same roof would develop a solution. For the temp workers the motivation was always very clear and ve…

The solution is simple. Criminal prosecution of the executives of the company, coupled with treating white collar crime the same way we treat street crime.

Can't even begin to think about all of the negative side effects this would have...

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#124

Post by vkou » Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 8:55 PM UTC

te_platt wrote: post #69

Frondo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is an alternative to unions that gives workers some power in the relationship between worker and employer?

The ability to get another job.

A company with 100 employees losing an employee costs them ~1% of their revenue until a replacement can be found.

An employee losing their employer loses ~100% of their revenue until a replacement is found.

The two are nowhere near equivalent.

On the other hand, when employees unionize, a company with 100 employees stands to lose ~100% of their revenue if employees choose to strike. That puts the two sides on an even footing.

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#125

Post by ABCLAW » Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 9:06 PM UTC

Danihan wrote: post #97

Jeremy1026 wrote: post #90

The last letter sent from Fiera to The Star[1] is scathing. Fiera is trying so very hard to play the victim to The Stars mean and "underhanded" tactics to get information about their operations. It probably would have served them better to just remain silent instead of sending this response. [1] http://projects.thestar.com/temp-employment-agencies/letters...

I don't know, I find that letter pretty convincing actually. They seem pissed, but they also make a lot of valid points.

I don't, given that core claims in the letter, which is clearly drafted in anticipation of litigation by legal, are contradicted by the reporting.

Maybe you just get a sense of when a lawyer making shit up and slinging shit after you've put together a few dozen similar letters.

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#126

Post by mrguyorama » Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 9:15 PM UTC

mcgarnagle wrote: post #55

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ending right to work laws and bringing back unions.

When the notion of a union was proposed to the management at Fierra, the owners spread the word that if the workers began forming one, everyone would be immediately fired and replaced. source: My grandmother used to work at this very factory when we first moved to Canada. She worked for about 5-6 years, starting in the 90s. When you are new to a country, don't speak the language or know the laws well, you don't have…

An industry based union would make them more difficult to replace, increasing the price of labor

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#127

Post by mrguyorama » Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 9:23 PM UTC

_5ysi wrote: post #81

bildung wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't really get this line of thinking, it just seems like a denial of globalization, automation, and economics. So what is the qualitative change in these three factors that changed so much in your opinion? Globalization was important for the US from its very inception (example: European price and production developments where a big factor in the Panic of 1819[1]). And productivity growth has been more or less c…

I think it has been the gradual march of technological progress and globalization. For example remember the civil war was largely fought over protectionist trade policies for northern manufacturers. And that was in the age of sail when many goods would not even make if from North America to Europe. Similar protectionist policies would be unthinkable now. Also the rise of America from being an upstart industrial power…

>For example remember the civil war was largely fought over protectionist trade policies for northern manufacturers.

That's a falsehood pushed by the south to deny their support of slavery. This short video about it from prager University is helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

Here you can read South Carolina's actual declaration of Succession, where they make a point of spending most of the 13 pages talking about how their "right" of slavery was being infringed upon: http://www.teachingushistory.org/pdfs/DecImmCauses.pdf

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#128

Post by Danihan » Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 9:52 PM UTC

jakobegger wrote: post #115

Danihan wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. I believe the journalist did sign a document that she knew where the emergency exits were, and the only "damning" thing she found on-site was an unclean bathroom and generally difficult work. This whole thing seems like such a non-story to me. Maybe it's because I've worked in factories before, but I've personally had more harrowing experiences on my 1st day than anything mentioned in this article.

Unreachable emergency stop buttons? Moving parts of a fan next to workers without safety covers? Workers fighting for space next to a crowded conveyor belt? Missing guard rails? Repeated fines for lacking safety? Everything about this factory sounds like a death trap.

Until these things are flagged upon inspection (and they would) I'd take it with a big grain of salt.

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#129

Post by vkou » Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 11:07 PM UTC

rukittenme wrote: post #103

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ending right to work laws and bringing back unions.

Why? All the law does is prevent compulsory membership in a union. That seems like a good thing.

No, because it introduces the free rider problem. It creates an incentive for any particular union member to defect from the union, because they no longer have to pay fees, but are legally entitled to whatever the union negotiated for.

It's like a law that prevents compulsory membership in a fire insurance plan, but also allows you to sign up for retroactive fire insurance after your house burns down.

It's sole purpose is union-busting.

Re: Undercover in a Toronto factory where a temp worker died

#130

Post by _5ysi » Wed, Sep 13, 2017, 1:13 AM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #127

_5ysi wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it has been the gradual march of technological progress and globalization. For example remember the civil war was largely fought over protectionist trade policies for northern manufacturers. And that was in the age of sail when many goods would not even make if from North America to Europe. Similar protectionist policies would be unthinkable now. Also the rise of America from being an upstart industrial power…

>For example remember the civil war was largely fought over protectionist trade policies for northern manufacturers. That's a falsehood pushed by the south to deny their support of slavery. This short video about it from prager University is helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4 Here you can read South Carolina's actual declaration of Succession, where they make a point of spending most of the 13 pages…

Either way, my point is that tariffs and protectionism had profound economic impact benefiting the industrial north and Midwest at that time.

I'm not sure if people even at that time knew which of the two was the more prominent cause of the war.