In another thread about rights - which was already going in too many directions at once - the "Right to Employment" was mentioned.

(1) Do you believe that employment is a basic human right?
(2) Do you believe that employment should be a basic human right?
(3) Do you believe in a fair minimum wage?
(4) Do you believe in social welfare for those who wish to work but are unable to find employment?
(5) Do you believe in social welfare for those who choose not to work?
(6) Do you believe that government policy should be strongly geared towards providing employment opportunities for as many citizens as possible?

Respondents do not have to respond to all 6 points.

(1) Do you believe that employment is a basic human right?

Yes, everyone has the right to seek employment, but employment cannot be guaranteed, and potential employers have the right to reject unsuitable applicants.

(2) Do you believe that employment should be a basic human right?

It already is.

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 23.

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(3) Do you believe in a fair minimum wage?

Yes, and I, with my Church, support the Campaign for a Living Wage.  In Scotland the minimum wage for an adult is currently £6.08 per hour.  A living wage is calculated as £7.20 per hour.  A living wage is intended to ensure that individuals can do more than "just make ends meet".

(4) Do you believe in social welfare for those who wish to work but are unable to find employment?

Yes.

(5) Do you believe in social welfare for those who choose not to work.

That depends on why they choose not to work.  I support social welfare for those who are caring for others, for example, but not for those who are idle, or refuse to take on work which they don't like, but are capable of doing.

(6) Do you believe that government policy should be strongly geared towards providing employment opportunities for as many citizens as possible?

Yes.

Oh dear. I expected to disagree with at least one point Marcia raised and have good objections as to why I disagreed.
I agree entirely with everything she has said. When you are right, you are right.

Error post.

Depends on the definition of employment as well.  Is doing a volunteer job in order to get social assistance benefits considered employment?  This is called "workfare" where I live.  It is supposed to give unemployed people "work experience" and "contacts" for employment.  It mostly benefits the employers who get people to work for free.  Recently the federal government official blasted the private sector for not doing much to create employment.  

Some do choose not to take employment offered while on social assistance for various reasons such as it is too far away from their home so their commuting time by public transit is in excess of 3 or 4 hours per day.  They would loss their medication benefits or other benefits if they worked.   Or the job is not safe, makes them ill, or they are just abused there.  

Mostly the problem is that there is not enough cheaper housing.  People are paying more than half their income to rent or mortgage and utilities.  It would not matter if minimum wages were increased as housing costs are allowed to increase more.

1 &2.  I believe it should be a basic human right. However, the US has laws in certain states that state that an employer can just fire an employee at will, without any reason given, at any time. Also, some states put citizens through strenuous requirements with credit, records, etc...to get employment. These types of situations make it hard for someone to maintain, or gain suitable employment. With that in mind, I no longer see where Employment IS a basic right (at least not in the states).. a vicious cycle, how can someone maintain good credit if they cannot first EARN money to pay their debts? This deserves a different discussion though.

3. Yes, I believe a fair minimum wage is needed. If the cost of living is dictated, then wages should keep up with that. It would be hypocritical otherwise.
4. Yes, I believe that we should provide social welfare for those UNABLE to work. Unable can also mean temporary unemployment whilst one finds a job, but that should only be for a limited time.
5. For those who choose NOT to work: it really depends on strict circumstances eg: someone caring for a parent, a child, or immediate relative. Studying as astudent (until a certain age), should qualify for some sort of assistance. Otherwise, those who freeload are NOT entitled to benefits.
6. Goverments should most definitely make policies geared to create employmentfor as many citizens.

Social benefits for volunteering, I can agree with. Students get a similar situation inAmerica, its called Vista or Americorps. I'm sure there are others.

As for losing medication benefits or paying too much for hosuing, that's why I say thateither a fair minimum wage needs to be set higher, or the costof living needs to be decreased. If one makes barely enough money to live, and getstheir medical benefits cut off, then in that case, they should increase the cutoff point for medical benefits.

(1) No? Human rights are directed against the state -> see (6)
(2) No? Who pays? (Eta: what Marcia wrote is correct, too, but as I see it that's not "employment" as a basic human right)
(3) No? Who pays?
(4) Yes (and I pay for some atm, as a taxpayer)
(5) Probably yes: I don't belive in forced labour.
(6) Not really. The employment opportunities I have seen so far were more like raking (or now: blowing) leafs in public parks ...

This post was last modified: 08-30-2012 09:41 PM by Shnoing.

No - the right to employment is not a basic human right.

You have the right to SEEK employment but that is as far as it goes.

1 - IF there is a willing employer OR if you are able and willing to go the self-employment route, yes
2 - Same as point 1 essentially
3 - No, there's tons of evidence that people are worse off when a minimum wage is enforced  as it leads to people not being hired at all
4 - As a practical and pragmatic thing, and because i'd be a hypocrite to say otherwise, yes
5 - No
6 - The government should make it easier to hire people by loosening some of the regulatory burden, but it's not the job of the state to find you an employer

On point 5, can I just ask - if someone chooses of their own free will not to work but then is not paid anything as a result, who's being forced?

I voted no, but thats because I don't believe one can demand to be employed in a capitalist system which avails of whims of employer productivity, consumer demand, and resource allocation. If your "stars dont align" (so to speak) with the present system, you're out of luck unless you can dig yourself a cozy corner somewhere and practice your unwanted, unneeded, or insufficient skill for the scraplings that [what-is-left-of] nature, or human good will, can provide.

On a philosophical level, I believe everyone has "work" to do in their life...

Otherwise, I seem to agree with Marcia.

This post was last modified: 08-31-2012 12:12 AM by sg1008.

In a perfect idealistic world there would be work for any one who desires it.

Unfortunately this isnt a perfect world

(1) & (2) I don't understand how employment can be a basic human right (except in the case of a true socialist state). If I lose my job and cannot find another, who has violated my human rights? Who is obliged to fulfill my right to a job, who can I take to court if this right is violated? The right to seek employment, of course, must be a human right.

(3) & (4) go hand in hand. A minimum wage creates a floor in the job market and pretty much guarantees unemployment. A minimum wage, by it's very nature, denies some people the right to work. I believe in both 3 and 4.

(5) I don't believe that any significant number of people choose to live on welfare. This is a myth propagated by some conservatives IMO. Marcia's example of a full time carer is IMO working, and working honourably.

(6) Yes. Not creating pretend jobs. Creating the economic conditions and opportunities for genuine and productive employment. Not allowing employers to import cheap labour, for example, without seriously considering the impact on the domestic job market.

No.  It would imply a basic human right to have employees, which is silly.  One does not have the right to hold other people's destinies in the balance, to be capable of destroying them at a whim.

When talking about "rights" bringing up "should/shouldn't be" is only useful for distinguishing counterfactual legal situations.  Generally speaking, right to work states are places where workplace discrimination, though illegal under federal law, will not be enforced and where union-busting has been made much easier.  Unions will be said to "force" people to join, as if the people working forty-hour weeks and getting overtime if they go over that are oppressed by the unions who fought to make that happen (although most people don't work so few hours, but never so much for the same employer).  In reality, it only goes to the power of unions to strike and form picket lines.  Is there a "Right to work" in that a fundamental right exists to cross picket lines and destroy collective bargaining?  Not from a moral perspective, although many legal entities do declare that there is one.  

Poverty level + fifty percent (calculated according to a forty-hour work-week)

Well, currently there is a ton of work to be done building and improving access to libraries, making it safer to walk along the streets, improving transportation options.  It would be better to get that done; unfortunately it is more profitable to leave it undone.  

So, if the labor market becomes dominated by companies that don't want or need to invest in doing work that society needs done, is it really the best choice for the government to simply manage the discontent engendered by such a situation?

No.

As long as there are states, it will be necessary for them to balance the economic power of their subjects.