You will what?
There are other ways to have something like worker's compensation, you know. For example, medical and/or disability insurance can cover workplace injuries (if they're "serious enough").
The very term "worker's compensation", taken at its root, refers to paying for damages inflicted upon workers. But that implies a tort - at the very least, negligence. That raises up again the whole issue of what constitutes negligence or any other tort by an employer against an employee.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Worker's comp has proven more successful than just hoping those alone will be enough. I like having a safe workplace and I like my comp.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think worker's comp involves a tort of negligence.
The rest has to be determined case by case.
This is certainly isn't going to win me many points in a manner of speaking but I really don't care at the moment. Autolykos, why even bother arguing with Mustang when it's obvious that he doesn't actually endorse worker's comp in the case of fraud. You then argue over what he considers fraud. The reason that libertarians are so hated by the majority of people is for exactly this reason. Always debating and trying to verbally corner the "opponent". For the love of freedom I wish my fellow libertarians would work on their rhetoric.
Aren't there any libertarians who support comp, anyway? I know some support environmental tort.
Serpentis-Lucis:Autolykos, why even bother arguing with Mustang when it's obvious that he doesn't actually endorse worker's comp in the case of fraud.
It wasn't obvious to me - not at first, and not for a while afterwards. What made you think it was obvious from the get-go?
Serpentis-Lucis:You then argue over what he considers fraud.
Yes, and why do you think I shouldn't?
Serpentis-Lucis:The reason that libertarians are so hated by the majority of people is for exactly this reason. Always debating and trying to verbally corner the "opponent". For the love of freedom I wish my fellow libertarians would work on their rhetoric.
What do you think is wrong with debating people? That's what I'm here to do in this forum - debate.
mustang19:Worker's comp has proven more successful than just hoping those alone will be enough. I like having a safe workplace and I like my comp.
You mean it's proven more successful to you. You can't escape subjective value judgements here, no matter how hard you try.
But I'm not surprised that you'd like someone else always footing the bill. After all, who wouldn't like that?
mustang19:I'm not a lawyer, but I think worker's comp involves a tort of negligence. The rest has to be determined case by case.
Aha, so here we actually have some common ground for once. It might surprise you to hear that I also think employers should pay compensation for damages incurred by employees should those employers be found to be negligent (or worse). So then our dispute is over what constitutes negligence.
I'd like it.
So then our dispute is over what constitutes negligence.
There's things like OSHA and union protections too, but okay, we can talk.
I would say that any injury that didn't result from employee fraud would constitute employer negligence. I don't think this is a very practictical reason to deny the plaintiff comp, since it involves judging the employee's intentions. But however comp works now seems to be effective.
Scenerio: An employee is working in a high-noise level environment. The employer informs the employee that there are dangerous levels of noise in the environment, posts signs, and provides free ear plugs to workers entering the environment. However the employee chooses not to wear the earplugs because they find them uncomfortable or too much of a hassle in the present, with no intent to commit fraud. They later suffer hearing damage. How is th employer negligent?
@ Autolykos
I suppose it wouldn't be obvious to you. The reason I considered it obvious is because do you really think Mustang is so stupid as to say that a person who is outright committing fraud to get worker's comp, is actually entitled to worker's comp? I mean it would take some extremely twisted thought processes to say that the guy who chops his fingers off on purpose deserves worker's comp.
You may believe that debate will actually win people over to the side of freedom but how many times has that worked for you? How many times has a debate with a Statist ended with the Statist joining our side? How many times did they at least become sympathetic to our cause after a debate? When someone challenges your point of view in front of dozens of people how does it really make you feel? Because for most people when that happens their defenses go up and they become more concerned with defending their current views than thinking about if the other person has a point.
In rhetoric there is a concept called ethos. Ethics. I haven't watched the videos which Mustang linked to because I have no doubt that they are as biased as humanly possible, problem is that they are probably effective in invoking sympathy. Want to know how those Leftists always seem to win? Because they are excellent when it comes to rhetoric, they don't waste serious time in trying to persuade people by using economics, they appeal to emotions because that is what most people actually respond to. Do you care about just debating or do you care about persuading people? That is the question libertarians should ask themselves when they are about to get in a "debate".
Serpentis-Lucis, if a person is employing logical fallacies in order to persuade people, then I don't care how good his rhetoric is - I'll consider him dishonest.
They later suffer hearing damage. How is th employer negligent?
Under my basic definition, the employer would be negligent. Plus, the evidence might largely be based on hearsay and I would give the benefit of the doubt to the employee.
Looking at the regular definition of negligence applied in worker's comp, It's hard to say, especially if not all the facts are known. But I'll assume that they are known. Technically, then, the employee is in the wrong if he files a suit. But in practice, when the evidence is unknown, it's better in practice if the employer just makes hearing protection mandatory on the noisy parts of the premises (which would obviate the need for the lawsuit and injury in the first place).
I haven't watched the videos which Mustang linked to because I have no doubt that they are as biased as humanly possible, problem is that they are probably effective in invoking sympathy.
We're talking about a non-commercial radio station. If the facts they present sound miserable, that's because that was the state of working conditions before worker's comp and the Wagner Act.
mustang19:I'd like [someone else to always foot the bill].
Of course you would - that's my point. Apparently you're an ethical egoist in the sense of "what I want is always right". That kind of ethical reasoning is next-of-kin to psychopathy.
mustang19:There's things like OSHA and union protections too, but okay, we can talk. I would say that any injury that didn't result from employee fraud would constitute employer negligence. I don't think this is a very practictical reason to deny the plaintiff comp, since it involves judging the employee's intentions. But however comp works now seems to be effective.
So what would you consider to be employee fraud? None of this "I know it when I see it" nonsense, please.
mustang19:Under my basic definition, the employer would be negligent.
Right, because your basic definition considers only two things: 1) whether the injury is sustained at the workplace, and 2) whether "employee fraud" (yet to be defined) was committed. That definition is self-serving, by the way, as it's obvious to me that your goal is to force employers to pay for pretty much any injury sustained at the workplace. But why employers and not, say, the government? Or would you really care either way, as long as the injured employee doesn't have to foot any part of the bill (above and beyond the taxes taken from him)?
mustang19:Looking at the regular definition of negligence applied in worker's comp, It's hard to say, especially if not all the facts are known. But I'll assume that they are known. Technically, then, the employee is in the wrong if he files a suit. But in practice, when the evidence is unknown, it's better in practice if the employer just makes hearing protection mandatory on the noisy parts of the premises (which would obviate the need for the lawsuit and injury in the first place).
When you say "[make] hearing protection mandatory", do you mean having a policy that any employee not wearing hearing protection on the noisy parts of the premises will be summarily dismissed? Or what? Either way, I'll point out that under your own definition of "negligence", such a policy would make no difference - the employer would have to pay for basically any hearing damage suffered by employees if they ignore the policy.
mustang19:We're talking about a non-commercial radio station.
That's a non sequitur - whether a radio station is commercial has nothing necessarily to do with any bias it may have.
I guess that's it for that, then.
But why employers and not, say, the government? Or would you really care either way, as long as the injured employee doesn't have to foot any part of the bill (above and beyond the taxes taken from him)?
Because the measure is supposed to be a deterrent to the employer.
When you say "[make] hearing protection mandatory", do you mean having a policy that any employee not wearing hearing protection on the noisy parts of the premises will be summarily dismissed? Or what?
Simply that the employee is not allowed into a part of the facility without wearing hearing protection.
But okay, I can allow exentuating circumstances if the employer provides safety equipment and the employee doesn't use it.
mustang19:I guess that's it for that, then.
So now you're refusing to provide a definition for "employee fraud"? Do you understand that this invalidates your definition of "employer negligence", as you've stated that term depends in part on "employee fraud"?
mustang19:Because the measure is supposed to be a deterrent to the employer.
Let me guess - a deterrent against any workplace injuries whatsoever? Tell me, is it really possible to have 100% safety? What does "100% safety" even mean?
mustang19:Simply that the employee is not allowed into a part of the facility without wearing hearing protection.
Okay, but that doesn't necessarily mean that no employee will ever enter that part of the facility without wearing hearing protection.
mustang19:But okay, I can allow exentuating circumstances if the employer provides safety equipment and the employee doesn't use it.
Why the change of heart here? And do you see this as a negotiation or something?
Do you understand that this invalidates your definition of "employer negligence", as you've stated that term depends in part on "employee fraud"?
I gave my definition. If you want more information, I'll go by however worker's comp law works.
Nope, and I'm sure there are going to be unjustified cases of it like in any other law.
Because if there really is written evidence that OSHA safety notices were put up or the employee or said, "hey, I'm going to be a moron and not use readily available safety equipment", then the employer did what he could to help.
mustang19:I gave my definition. If you want more information, I'll go by however worker's comp law works.
I'll take that as a yes - you do understand that this invalidates your definition of "employer negligence", since you've stated that term depends in part on "employee fraud", which is a term you refuse to define ("I know it when I see it" doesn't constitute an intelligible definition). Thanks for playing, better luck next time.
mustang19:Nope, and I'm sure there are going to be unjustified cases of it like in any other law.
So then what do you think must be deterred?
Keep in mind that the context of our discussion is not limited to the law as currently written. I will rebuff any and all attempts to make the context that narrow. Do you understand?
mustang19:Because if there really is written evidence that OSHA safety notices were put up or the employee or said, "hey, I'm going to be a moron and not use readily available safety equipment", then the employer did what he could to help.
Referring specifically to OSHA is another attempt to narrow the context. I reject that attempt.
Now then, if the employer simply warned the employee of the saftey hazards involved, why wouldn't you say then that the employer did what he could to help?
Employers turning workplaces into some 19th century piece of shit.
Of course not.
No, not if he didn't attempt to eliminate the safety hazards.
mustang19:Employers turning workplaces into some 19th century piece of shit [must be deterred].
Emotionally loaded language aside, I have two questions. First, why do you think that employers will necessarily revert workplaces back to "conditions in the 19th century" if they're not forced to pay for pretty much any injuries sustained at their workplaces? (I put "conditions in the 19th century" in quotes because the 19th century was 100 years, and I seriously doubt that workplace conditions remained static over such a long period of time.) Second, why do you think that must be deterred in the first place?
mustang19:Of course not.
Are you saying you don't understand what I said? Or are you saying that of course the context of our discussion is not limited to the law as currently written?
mustang19:No, not if he didn't attempt to eliminate the safety hazards.
The question I asked was a why question. I'll be gracious enough to repeat it for you: if the employer simply warned the employee of the safety hazards involved, why wouldn't you say then that the mployer did what he could to help?
Emotionally loaded language aside, I have two questions. First, why do you think that employers will necessarily revert workplaces back to "conditions in the 19th century" if they're not forced to pay for pretty much any injuries sustained at their workplaces? (I put "conditions in the 19th century" in quotes because the 19th century was 100 years, and I seriously doubt that workplace conditions remained static over such a long period of time.)
Workplaces are less safe when employers aren't accountable, and worker's comp reduced accidents when it was introduced. So I wouldn't want to go back to the period before then.
Second, why do you think that must be deterred in the first place?
Because not getting frozen to death working in a meat plant is nice.
I'm saying that the discussion includes both current law and our proposals.
I am saying that he didn't completely or at least mostly eliminate the safety hazards. Wearing hearing protection, if it does largely eliminate safety risks, shows at least an effort on the employer's part to eliminate these risks.
Obviously, "largely" is subjective and is going to have to be decided case by case. If you can't accept that idea, then I don't know what else to say.
I see that you're trying to get me to admit that workplace safety is a made up word and employees choose the jobs that they do and employers have no say in what work employees do. If that's your opinion, great, let's end the discussion. Otherwise, I support worker's comp because I think it makes workplaces safer for me and most other workers. If you think that that's an unjustified use of force, I understand what you're saying, but I don't care.
Why do you assume, mustang, that employers would not be accountable for the safety of their employees? It is in the best interest of the employer to create safe working situations. If even one meat packing plant decides that they want to make their factory more safe for work, workers will flock to that factory, leaving other more unsafe factories with deficient resources (ceteris paribus), or creating a need for a peaceful union. These safety precautions result in the business running better and more smoothly, which raises the profit-loss ratio for the employer. Competition drives up the standard of living, in general. Do you understand what competition between businesses is, and the implications of that competition?
I think you're uncomfortable with the idea of self-ownership and personal responsibility. If you can show me how personal responsibility and self-ownership apply to your idea of a worker in the worker-employer relationship, I'll fold my cards.
Why do you assume, mustang, that employers would not be accountable for the safety of their employees?
I don't assume. We know how things were before these regulations.
I don't think we'll be able to agree on everything. But I believe that workers should have some ownership of the things they produce and contribute to. Until they're granted shared ownership of their workplaces according to what they've contributed to sustaining it, worker's comp gives them some protection against how employers decide to run it.
And this debate just got derailed in 3,2,1...
mustang19:Workplaces are less safe when employers aren't accountable, and worker's comp reduced accidents when it was introduced. So I wouldn't want to go back to the period before then.
FTFY
mustang19:Because not getting frozen to death working in a meat plant is nice.
mustang19:I'm saying that the discussion includes both current law and our proposals.
I'm saying that the discussion is about principles, so what the current law says is irrelevant.
mustang19:I am saying that he didn't completely or at least mostly eliminate the safety hazards. Wearing hearing protection, if it does largely eliminate safety risks, shows at least an effort on the employer's part to eliminate these risks.
So the employee is not responsible for risks he's willing to take? By that reasoning, I wouldn't be responsible for my own death if I was unlucky in a round of Russian roulette. Or are you resorting to special pleading here?
Aside from that, who do you think is competent to judge whether the safety hazards have been eliminated? Indeed, who do you think is competent to figure out just what the safety hazards are, if any? Finally, why must safety hazards be eliminated?
mustang19:Obviously, "largely" is subjective and is going to have to be decided case by case. If you can't accept that idea, then I don't know what else to say.
Well, you can tell me just why you accept the notion of "I know it when I see it" so readily in this context, because I'm really at a loss to understand that. It sounds like a cop-out to me.
mustang19:I see that you're trying to get me to admit that workplace safety is a made up word and employees choose the jobs that they do and employers have no say in what work employees do. If that's your opinion, great, let's end the discussion. Otherwise, I support worker's comp because I think it makes workplaces safer for me and most other workers. If you think that that's an unjustified use of force, I understand what you're saying, but I don't care.
I'm not sure what you mean by "employers have no say in what work employees do". But my point has basically been to point out your logical fallacies, as well as your hypocrisy, double standards, and special pleading (but I repeat myself). If you want to be a hypocrite, well, that's up to you - I can't make you want otherwise. Still, it seems that most people don't want to be hypocrites, so you might have some cognitive dissonance to deal with. Then again, maybe you're used to that.
mustang19:I don't assume. We know how things were before these regulations.
FTFY (again)
mustang19:I don't think we'll be able to agree on everything. But I believe that workers should have some ownership of the things they produce and contribute to. Until they're granted shared ownership of their workplaces according to what they've contributed to sustaining it, worker's comp gives them some protection against how employers decide to run it.
On what basis do you believe that workers should have some ownership of the things they produce and contribute to? I'm guessing some kind of labor theory of value, but I could be wrong.
Post hoc ergo proctor hoc
The history of worker's comp is meant as evidence, not conclusive proof. If you want to disregard that evidence, okay. I'd appreciate some kind of counter-evidence, though.
To some degree, yeah, if it's a choice between doing what the boss says and unemployment. As for Russian Roulette, I guess that would be your fault, unless you were faced with something like the decision between losing your job and putting yourself at risk.
Aside from that, who do you think is competent to judge whether the safety hazards have been eliminated? Indeed, who do you think is competent to figure out just what the safety hazards are, if any?
A judge.
Finally, why must safety hazards be eliminated?
I can see that you're trying to win something here by ignoring context clues, or maybe even being genuinely unable to communicate with a human being.
Back to my fallacy of composition (?) 19th century meat packing plant statement. I don't expect safety hazards to be eliminated. Just reduced.
If you want to be a hypocrite, well, that's up to you - I can't make you want otherwise.
Far as I can tell, I haven't been inconsistent, besides perhaps clarifying that judges should enforce the spirit of the law, and be conscious of exentuating circumstances and fraud. I'm not just talking about principles. I'm talking about applying them into law when the facts are unclear and evidence may not be complete.
mustang19:The history of worker's comp is meant as evidence, not conclusive proof. If you want to disregard that evidence, okay. I'd appreciate some kind of counter-evidence, though.
Sure, but that will take some time for me to look up.
mustang19:To some degree, yeah, if it's a choice between doing what the boss says and unemployment. As for Russian Roulette, I guess that would be your fault, unless you were faced with something like the decision between losing your job and putting yourself at risk.
So you're resorting to special pleading. Thanks for making that clear.
mustang19:A judge.
What do you think makes him qualified?
mustang19:I can see that you're trying to win something here by ignoring context clues, or maybe even being genuinely unable to communicate with a human being.
No, I'm questioning the implicit assumptions you're bringing in. Can you address that or not?
mustang19:Back to my fallacy of composition (?) 19th century meat packing plant statement. I don't expect safety hazards to be eliminated. Just reduced.
You do understand what the fallacy of composition is, don't you?
By how much do you expect safety hazards to be reduced?
mustang19:Far as I can tell, I haven't been inconsistent, besides perhaps clarifying that judges should enforce the spirit of the law, and be conscious of exentuating circumstances and fraud. I'm not just talking about principles. I'm talking about applying them into law when the facts are unclear and evidence may not be complete.
You're not even talking about principles, as far as I'm concerned, because you haven't yet established just what your principles are. So how can you logically talk about applying your principles into law etc. when your principles are incomplete at best? That's certainly one area, at least, where you've been inconsistent.
Go for it, tiger.
Yep, and you could call any statement I make that isn't completely in line with some moral absolutist position a "special plea".
His law school plaque. Lawyers aren't that bright, but they're probably better than some random redneck-off-the-street. Why do I trust judges, then? Well, unfortunately, society needs to pick someone to run its legal system and studying law is the best education anyone seems to have developed for filling that role effectively.
I can, and you're the one ignoring my implicit assumptions, Picard. The "how much" question is what you should be asking.
You do understand what the fallacy of composition is, don't you? By how much do you expect safety hazards to be reduced?
By enough to justify whatever inefficiency the regulation causes. I'll trade some fraction of a percent loss of wages from legal fees for comp protection if that's how it has to work.
For the purposes of this argument you can call me a utilitarian. Want more specifics? Well, I'll answer.
@ Mustang
If the regulations were passed into law, wouldn't that mean that a majority or at least a very large number of people were pushing for those regulations? With so many people wanting the safer conditions then it seems like they would have gotten the safer conditions even without the help of government. Seems like the only reason the government got involved is so that they could take responsibility for enforcing the regulations and implementing future regulations, most likely the powerful interests that the Left hates so much are responsible for it, they allowed a compromise where the proletariat supposedly benefitted the most. I used the word supposedly because in actuality the people in power (This includes the corporate leaders), were put in a position where they control the people who are putting the regulations into law and enforcing them. Allowing them to be able to crush their smaller competition under the weight of regulation, allowing them to first approve of any regulation before it is passed, and allowing them to alter the regulations in such a way as to make sure it never actually effects them severely. This would give the powerful corporate interests a position of power in all future negotiations over regulations. Leading me to believe that conditions might be better if the government (by way of large corporate interests) hadn't meddled with regulations.
With so many people wanting the safer conditions then it seems like they would have gotten the safer conditions even without the help of government
Unfortunately, there was a huge labor movement fighting for labor reforms including things like safer conditions and an eight hour day that never accomplished their goal until the federal government did something. Workers don't have complete control over what their workplaces are like. They have to take the work offered to put food on the table.
Leading me to believe that conditions might be better if the government (by way of large corporate interests) hadn't meddled with regulations.
Maybe, but the evidence of how employers reacted to these regulations does suggest they had a major impact on workplace conditions. This was brought up earlier in the thread.
Hmm, perhaps you're right. I just find it hard to believe that they managed to get enough leverage, to get the federal government to pass the regulations into law, yet they weren't able to do so without the government's help. I'll give it more thought.
if enough people really wanted the change, if they all had quit working for employers with conditions they disagreed with, and their was profit to be made in that industry, the employer would have either improved conditions to gain the workers back or been ultimately forced out of business by an entrepreneur that would improve the working conditions, unless there were in fact more people willing to accept the risk in exchange for the wage (but that implies that not enough people wanted the change in the first place.
it seems to me that you believe a job is some sort of "right." furthermore, you must believe that this job should provide enough for some arbitrary amount of comfort to purchase some arbitrary amount of goods and services while providing and arbitrary level of protection from risk. You muthe then reject all aspects of the free market, because you would need to force food, clothes, shelter, etc. to be produced and sold at prices low enough to meet your arbitrary thresholds of this fundamental "right."
employment is not a right. the reasoning is that you only wish everyone had a job so they could buy things, like food. but that's too vague, and ignores the fact that risk always exists. There is no guarantee that there won't be a drought and all food from some large region will be wiped out. and if it does, the unfortunate people affected have no right to force someone to ship and sell them food, at arbitrarily "low enough" prices. No different than a bear that moves to a different region from other bears and unfortunately went to a habitat with no food has no right to expect all other bears to come provide him with sustenance. He took the risk, and he will either be rewarded with plenty or be worse off.
The choice is your own, the risk is your own, the consequences are your own. This doesn't mean others aren't free to voluntarily choose to help, ie charity. They don't have a right to coerce a business owner.
The right to life is not a right to be kept alive through the coercion of others
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
if enough people really wanted the change, if they all had quit working for employers with conditions they disagreed with,
Easier said than done.
Employers were constantly working to take out unions with scabs, union busters, and the police. There was a lot of violence, too. Trying to organize a union was liable to get you shot by your boss or the police. It's a wonder they were able to accomplish anything at all.
If it is worth doing, it's worth a personal sacrifice. Workers could have all quit together, and then helped each other with putting food on the table, for example. Yes, everyone would be eating less than they were used to, but no one would have to starve to death. And luckily, it would seem to me, that doing something like that is easier to go through when you're not alone. "Solidarity."
Instead, they lobbied the government to make laws in their favor (no different than many corporations and industries did and still do). Funny, because the main problem, IMO, was government favor towards some corporations and industries, and so workers figured the solution was, not to force the government to maintain its proper Constitutional role and reject corporate favoritism in the eyes of the law, but more of the same poison, which is more regulations and favoritism and lobbying.
Easier said than done does not imply an impossibility, at all. Unions lobbying for regulation on top of regulations implies that they wished to force the sacrifice onto others, namely their employers and workers that did not belong to a union. Collectivism is disastrous in the long term, which leads us to where we are today, with manufacturing leaving the country to somewhere they can make a profit and collectivists demanding the "1%" make more sacrifices for the so they don't have to save, live within or below their means, or otherwise help each other through real solidarity. It's fascism v. socialism, which are both failed systems, both examples of using government to live at the expense of others, and both ultimately lead to the loss of life and liberty through the necessary rise of total tyranny.
Well, my account is messed up and isn't taking my password. So I'm posting from an alt.
But I'll agree to disagree with you, Phi, if you think there weren't a whole lot of people trying to organize a general strike like you've mentioned despite the problems labor faced.
It is not that I don't think that there wasn't a whole lot of people trying to organize a strike. I'm saying "whole lot" is a completely subjective term. Whole lot compared to the number of people willing to take the same jobs if indeed strikes occurred? If not, then that's too bad, IMO. The market would be saying that there were people willing to take such risks in exchange for the wages/benefits/experience offered. And if there were not many people willing to take those jobs after a strike, the company would have no choices except losing profits and ultimately going out of business or giving in to some demands from labor. The fact that government was needed to make changes in the workplace tells me that there would have been more people willing to accept the risk/reward of those jobs and the organized labor looked to government to make it easier for them to bypass the market and gain at the expense of others through coercion.
The market would be saying that there were people willing to take such risks in exchange for the wages/benefits/experience offered.
That doesn't mean that they wouldn't want to have a workplace where basic sanitary measures are taken and they don't have to put their feet in animal carcasses to stay warm. The employee doesn't decide how the workplace is run; he has some ability to pick another job, but when unemployment is as high as it was in Chicago and other industrial cities he doesn't have much choice, and employer intimidation and violence made it difficult to organize. There was never a large group of employees opposed to basic regulations like worker's comp, even during the Chicago labor riots; workers overwhelmingly supported these measures, but employers were even better organized.
That doesn't mean that they wouldn't want to have a workplace where basic sanitary measures are taken
You are confusing desire for demand. Their demand is revealed when they accept the wages in exchange for their labor. If desire was tantamount to demand, one could argue that many consumers wanted more bread for their money, more meat for their money... hell, even those customers wanted more quality for their money, and more convenient shopping experience. And the grocer wanted more money for his bread and meat, and wanted more productivity from his employees for the wages he paid.
Such is the nature of the free market. This is what is meant by demand and supply. Demand and participation in voluntary exchange is how people vote in the markets. But lobbying government to pass legislation that forces their desires upon others. It's just another form of parasitism. Laws that favor labor are as vile as laws that favor corporations. Minimum wage laws are as evil as price controls. These economic fallacies always have an overall, long-term disastrous effect on the economy. That's because these types of laws aggress against actors in the markets. It continually diminishes the weight of their vote in the markets until it is meaningless.
We shouldn't just agree to disagree. You need to reconcile your unfeasible and perverse political philosophy and economic definitions. A job as a right diminishes and obscures the meaning and significance of rights. A desire as demand reduces and blurs the understanding and function of demand. These simple but catastrophic acts are similar to the tools that allow the rise and rule of a dictator.
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
-Samuel Adams