[Meslocusist]

I am of the opinion that as of right now there are too many rights for workers. That is not to say that I think that their position is fair or that they have exorbitant protections. However, I think that the sheer number of rights means that ultimately many go unenforced, or are toothless because the vast majority of people have never heard of them.

What do people think of, instead of having thousands of pages worth of bills and laws for the protection of workers, having a maximum of say 10 protections? These could be extremely broad, for example "The right to working conditions that are dangerous or debilitating." I think having a shorter list of broader rights would allow people to know their rights, leading to higher levels of enforcement and a better situation for workers.

[yiwahikanak]

Could you please provide some examples of the 'rights' you believe to be 'toothless' so I can better consider your argument?

[yiwahikanak]

What do people think of, instead of having thousands of pages worth of bills and laws for the protection of workers, having a maximum of say 10 protections? These could be extremely broad, for example "The right to working conditions that are dangerous or debilitating."

Could I also point out that this would not in fact make anything more simple? If you defined a right so broadly, that right would have to be more specifically defined by case law, causing these rights to be even more 'obscure', in that you would have to wade through so much case law to know what constitutes 'dangerous or debilitating' conditions. There needs to be a certain amount of certainty in these kinds of relationships, both from the perspective of the employer and from the perspective of the employee.

[Meslocusist]

Fair enough arguments. I'm not very well versed on these matters, so this is more of an outsider opinion. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there are a lot of different rights, many of which most people don't really know. I wouldn't say that any of them are "toothless"- but rather that it would make things easier for everyone, and that violations would be more widely reported.

It would certainly be a challenge to make the rights broad enough that you would only have a few of them, but concise enough that there is little ambiguity in their interpretation. Things like "Fair compensation for work done," for example sounds great in principle but leaves a lot to be desired in terms of stating what is okay and what isn't.

As I said, I am no expert on these matters and there are a lot of people on Pofo who know a lot more than I do, very likely including you. I guess the primary point of this thread was to ask the question: Would labor be on the whole better off if the rights of workers were derived from a few basic principles as opposed to being a plethora of different laws?

I admit that it is very possible that the answer is no.

[yiwahikanak]

I think it would be most accurate to characterise the current labour situation as one that is indeed based on a few broad principles, given specific form through a plethora of administrative regimes and regulations. So I do not believe it needs to be an either or situation.

[Meslocusist]

Fair enough. Though I suppose it would be good to see those specific principles articulated somewhere.

[yiwahikanak]

...

They usually are. You can pick up a Labour Code (dealing with unionised work situations) at a legal library or bookstore, and Employment Law (dealing with non-unionised situations) are usually dealt with under an Employment Act which is administered by a specialised tribunal that will actively help you deal with specific employer/employee situations.

In fact, these are some of the most clearly articulated laws and regulations out there.

[Meslocusist]

I bow to your superior knowledge

It seems I should have done a lot more research before posting that one. Sorry to waste your time.

[Negotiator]

I think its generally a good idea to have rather fewer, more general laws.

Sadly thats not what modern parlaments are likely to produce.

[yiwahikanak]

I think its generally a good idea to have rather fewer, more general laws.

Sadly thats not what modern parlaments are likely to produce.

Perhaps you are unaware that Parliaments are the ones who pass the general laws in most cases, and then delegate the more detailed laws (such as building codes, for example) to a group of experts?

I'm sure you can see why having quite detailed regulations (which are laws) is necessary in many circumstances. Building codes has already been mentioned, but there are also detailed regulations relating to workplace safety which are dependent on the particular work environment, as well as regulations relating to how to deal with various workplace accidents/hazards.

Do you believe these regulations should be gotten rid of in favour of more general laws?