Parties enter into agreements all the time - often grudgingly.
The above agreement MIGHT be "based on the mutual agreement of what the employee and employer agree the position is worth", if neither side is under pressure. A person in desperate straights would very likely accept employment that was needed, even if that meant he fully believed he was underpaid, or the work was too hazardous. Similarly, an employer might hire an unqualified, or irresponsible employee, if he could find no one else to do the job.
An extreme example comes to mind from the Japanese movie Seppuku (1962) aka "Harakiri". Here an individual decided to perform seppuku for money to pay for needed medical care for his wife. He saw no other way out. The employer, a samurai clan, tricked him and gave him a bamboo-edged blade to perform seppuku with (so they could relish the event all the more). He suffered much more than expected as a result. [To conclude the movie, the father-in-law had his revenge.]
Actually I have witnessed just that on many occasions. Technically both parties must be "willing", but as GomJabbar mentioned, often one of the parties essentially "agrees" against their will or against their better judgement.
If an employer needs an employee more than the employee needs the employer, it is not at all unusual for the employee to essentially dictate the terms of their employment. (not particularly common in a capitalist society, as workers tend to be in a weaker position than employers, but it *does* happen)
Once again, this is only true in theory. In practice, an employee often finds themselves accepting positions they really don't want (ie because they just need a job of some kind), and employers sometimes employ people that they don't really prefer because they just need some work done and can't find someone more to their liking. (or at a pay scale they would prefer)
Some aspects need to be monitored and/or regulated to ensure that the basic civil rights of citizens are not trampled, yes.
The "free market" gave us such lovely things as child factory labor and highly dangerous working conditions for everyone during the Industrial Revolution, for example. Issues which ultimately had to be addressed by governmental regulation since, left to their own devices, employers in the "free market" tend to seek out the highest profits, regardless the effects on the citizenry and/or the overall benefit to society.
Corporations are not "social beings" that seek to enhance their social environment beyond their own profit aims, yet recent trends often see their supporters bizarrely trying to characterize them as such, as if they have a "right to free speech", or some other rights normally accorded to human beings.
Actually it is based on some compromise between the perceived need of both the employer and employee. When the need of entity A exceeds the need of entity B, then entity B is in the position of being able to call the shots. Sometimes entity B is the employee.
What we have been discussing here is essentially how Walmart's financial and market position tends to put them much more in the position of "entity B" than might be good for the community overall.
Child labor and highly dangerous working conditions predate the Industrial Revolution, by a large margin!
Corporations have had many of the rights normally accorded to individual citizens. Responsibilities too. This is not a recent trend -- it's been that way pretty much since the concept of a body corporate was first introduced into law.
I don't believe I ever said that there wasn't any pressure for either party. In fact, most of the time there is pressure on one or both parties. In it's simplest form, both parties are under at least some pressure (i.e., employer wants to pay less, employee wants to make more, etc). All of that doesn't negate what I said. It is -- in the end -- an agreement between the parties. If the terms are too far away from what either party is willing to accept, the agreement does not happen.
Before we lose sight of my original point, let me restate it: Wages aren't ever determined [alone] by what the employee thinks they need. (I just added the "alone" for clarity.)
You're right. Let me re-phrase that: widespread exploitation of child labor in the factories being built during the "industrial revolution" led to landmark labor laws in the US and elsewhere at that time. Prior to that era, while children were widely exploited as labor even in "civilized" countries, I think it was done more by their own families than by businesses with no connection to the children. Once society started to really understand the benefits of keeping kids in school rather than putting them to work on the farm (or in the factory), the idea of child labor became relatively repugnant and thus the laws to restrict it were created.
It has accelerated as of late. There have been those who have recently tried to argue that a "corporation's right to free speech" trumps community interest when it comes to things like pharmaceutical companies hawking their prescriptions direct to patients, or companies asserting that they should be given equal time in the media to "set the facts straight" when they are attacked for endangering or harming the public. I just don't think such organizations deserve such special consideration.
Actually the "corporate person" is arguably the most poisonous concept in the history of the world -- all the rights of a real person, with only one responsibility -- to increase value for the shareholder and the rest be damned.
Exactly. So this was *not* a problem created by corporations, free markets or the Industrial Revolution. Glad we sorted that out.
And I guess we can thank the Churches for that. They championed the cause long before any legislators took any action.
Well, yes, all of this information should obviously be controlled by the Ministry of Information. Perhaps we could have the fire departments burn all of those medicine advertisments too?
That's not actually what I was saying. I think people developed a very different view of child labor when the practice was undertaken on a large scale by corporations for their own profit motives, rather than simply "the good of the family" as in the traditional view. I also think that the 20th century was a time when values were evolving in the western world about the importance of education and a new egalitarian view of individuality which was counterbalancing traditional societal expectations that in order to have power you had to be a member of the existing aristocracy, etc. A significant amount of credit for those evolving values should probably be given to various modern social movements such as the French Revolution and its philosophical counterparts (ie Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and many others) in the USA.
I'm sure they can be given some credit, but certainly not sole credit. For example, one of the most famous of the "reformers" credited with influencing the sea-change was Lewis Hine, a schoolteacher who became known around the world for his photographs of child laborers:
=3FThere is work that profits children, and there is work that brings profit only to employers. The object of employing children is not to train them, but to get high profits from their work.=3F --Lewis Hine, 1908
Glad to see you're familiar with Orwell's work, but this is hardly what I am advocating. I do however think it does no service to the public to advertise prescription drugs to them directly. These days at every turn we have large organizations with a huge financial interest trying to make an end-run around the advice and expertise of doctors, and in most cases it isn't benefitting the patients.
I disagree entirely. Almost nothing would improve the health care system more than better educated and informed patients.
An informed patient can get hugely more out of the 6 minute consultation than an uninformed one.
It's a poor doctor that prescribes a medicine that would likely be harmful just because the patient saw an ad and asked for it.
Besides, many of the pharmaceutical ads are encouraging those patients who are not currently discussing the condition with their doctor to actually do so.
I do agree that consumers need some legal protection against false and misleading advertising. But that is certainly in place for pharmaceutical products where almost every word of copy requires FDA approval.
Most doctors I've spoken to feel that medicines are more over-regulated than under-regulated.
This is kinda bizarre, because what you appear to be disagreeing with was never written by me. Where did I say that we shouldn't have "educated and informed patients"??
What I was saying was that there are many large commercial entities who bring their special-interests to bear on the medical industry, and in general they do _not_ do this out of selfless philanthropy and concern for the welfare of patients.
Here is just one example of what I'm talking about:
formatting link
And guess which entities we have to thank for those "6 minute consultations"?
The simple fact is that quite a few doctors are going to buckle to pressure from patients to prescribe drugs they might not otherwise have prescribed, or else the pharmaceutical companies would not be spending millions or billions of dollars on that direct-consumer advertising.
I have a close relative who once worked in the pharmaceutical industry as a field sales rep. The tactics that those people resort to in order to try to sell to recalcitrant doctors could be described as no less than guerrilla warfare. The latest trend towards direct-consumer advertising is just yet another tactic to try to bypass doctors who resist pressure-tactics to prescribe their products.
I think you give that advertising way more credit than it deserves. If the goal of the industry was to selflessly help patients discuss their condition, they could accomplish a lot more philanthropy with a lot fewer dollars by sponsoring public service announcements and community education projects.
The industry knows full-well that cleverly-designed media messages can easily minimize the warnings and other FDA- mandated consumer protections, especially since they appeal to people's innate hope that some "miracle drug" will solve all their problems, perhaps without the hard work of actually working through all the various factors and tests and other things that are often necessary to get a good diagnosis. On that score, such advertisements often work against the patient's interest by encouraging them to seek another pill (ie in the case of sleep aids), rather than investigate the complex factors that contribute to their health issue.
Given the Vioxx fiasco, and the Phen-Fen, Thalidomide and others before it, one would think that people would realize the value in being cautious about such things. Another big factor is the infamous litigious mentality that has taken hold in the USA, making very few entities inclined to take any risks when they face a massive litigious backlash if anything goes awry.
Consumers -- it's what they've been willing to pay for. Perhaps it's also sufficient?
Things are pretty much the same under government run health care systems. Thus it doesn't appear to be unique to the corporate or for-profit factor.
And the reasonable consumer knows that advertizing is well, advertizing, as distinct from an impartial and unbiased presentation of scientific facts.
Based on what we know so far, Vioxx was only a fiasco in relation to the ligitious and regulatory over-reaction to some relatively minor problems. Thalidomide was certainly an error from which the whole industry learned some important lessons, about chirality in particular. The industry response was pretty close to exemplary, IMO.
I really don't know enough about Phen-Fen to comment.
In any event, the benefits of medical technology have so hugely overwhelmed the rare adverse events, that it's pretty easy to justify a *slightly* less cautious approach to the development and introduction of new medicines. I think even the FDA accepts that point of view -- they just don't know/can't decide exactly how to proceed.
Not in my experience, which is really quite extensive.
Aside from anything else, adverse events can irreparably damage a company's brand reputation for safe products.
Of course, when it comes to the inevitable law suits, and the lawyers take control, all bets are off. Both sides will say and do practically anything to further their case.
But I have known and worked with many scientists, physicians and executives in the industry over many years. All have demonstrated profound concern and compassion whenever anyone has been harmed or exposed to inappropriate risk.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.