well, following that logic we'd still have seven year olds working down the pit. and thanks to unions we have the 8.8.8 day (8 hours work, 8 hours rest, 8 hours leisure). thanks to unions we have holiday and sick pay, and thanks to unions we have serious efforts to equalize the pay between men and women.
there are single parent families that can't simply up sticks and move on to a better job elsewhere. look at what happens in the USA, waiters in many states are on $2.70 an hour and relying on tips just to get by.
that is the end result of unrestrained capitalism...
Sure. No argument from me. I'm aware of the effect of the industrial revolution and the guilds and unions that struggled to keep some humanity in society for those that actually live in it.
Nevertheless, I can't see what can be done, in a practical sense, without tearing down capitalism as we have come to know it post WWII. There's probably a discussion, and a mighty good one, right there, but in light of this threads discussion, what can be done? Limit company profits by legislation and demand a 'super tax' on any margins above that preset level which then must be fed back in a sort of profit sharing agreement with the employees?
Its certainly a balancing act, but without interfering in running businesses, essentially government intervention in profit taking and business direction, what can honestly be done?
The theory with a reasonably free and open market place linked with a reasonably democratic and free society is that folk are free to set up socially responsible business models any day of the week. The staff of QF, (as I try to tie into the conversation by a thin thread indeed), could stage an employee/management buyout and run the business to profit and benefit themselves. After all, shareholder (owners) appoint boards who then run companies in any manner they like (within the law).
So here we are, all pondering if pilots are 'worth' 400K a year, and whether its 'right' to sack 1,000 employees when a week later you announce a 250M profit.
My point, I guess, if I even really have one, is that our current model for companies in the west is devoid of empathy and social responsibility (whatever that even means). Boards are appointed, with a legal obligation, not to improve the lot of the employees, but to act in the best interests of the owners, despite how that sometimes seems to pan out for us poor working class (yep, and I'm one of those).
If, collectively as a country, we don't like this, then politicians and law change is the first port of call in my opinion. Imposing some sort of faux morality on companys who are governed by current corporate law is just screaming at the wind I think.
if companies were truly allowed to run entirely for profit without care or regard for their workers we would live in a sad third world country with no work-life balance.
Ha! I'm glad of the smiley. 'cause I live and work in Australia, and my life work balance is bad