Class Notes (837,689)
Canada (510,396)
Philosophy (1,795)
PHI2397 (173)
Jon Miller (61)
Lecture

Lecture March 14.docx

10 Pages
86 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Philosophy
Course
PHI2397
Professor
Jon Miller
Semester
Winter

Description
• If you have only one life, what are you going to do with it? • Employee want—success in life (happiness) • Employee right—right to quit (freedom) • Don’t underestimate the value of a good work environment • Employer wants money o You make more money by having enthusiastic workers. Studies back this up • What Makes a good work environment? o Doing something you like o Working with people you like • When you have that, perhaps shouldn’t just look at the money • Family vs work • Money o Employer want—fair pay for fair pay o But what exactly is pay? • Working for free o Unpaid Internship o Should there be a difference between “unpaid interning” and working? Should workers be entitled to minimum wage? o Business supports unpaid internships  *Marx spoke of how worker competition would drive wages down to subsitence. Has it began sinking below subsistence? o Should government regulate internships? • Should government get involved in business? o Milton Friedman—leave business alone. Let the market decide • Minimum wage laws? Why not allow businesses to decide how much they want to pay their employees? o Employer Rights (or at least wants)—leave me alone, when it comes to business  Put up all risk, money for business. Why should gov come in and tell them what to pay their employees • Job Market o If you are not willing to compete, job goes to somebody else • Milton Friedman against min. Wage—well meaning, but ensures that those without skills to justify earning w/e minimum wage is will be unemployed. o Min wage laws are a direct contributor, then, to youth unemployment • Equal pay for equal work o So, business shouldn’t negotiate based on experience or anything else save what actual work is being done • Employee wants o Right to quit • Mike Handerson—business not forced to do these. But should anyways, because its good business o 1) Right to your employee information. What is your status in the company?  Job secure? What’s your standing. Without this, insecurity. o 2) Right to fair pay  What’s fair? Generally , equal pay for equal work. Even if not a right, makes for a better working environment, reduces employee resentment o 3) Right not to be fired for invalid reason  As the boss, can fire and hire whoever want. But if fire people on a whim, will make for bad work environment. A smart boss will only fire for valid reasons, to set examples o 4) Right to be free from unjust discrimination  Is racism (or the like) smart business? Almost definitely not. • Unjust discrimination o Making decisions based on gender, race, religion, etc. o Should government do something about it?  If yes, then you believe in gov interference in business. And if you believe in that here, why not other places as well? o Is discrimination on basis okay? Less unjust than racism? o Hiring quotas  US—affirmative action  Canada—employment equity o In certain business, say perhaps where clientele are racists, is racism in business a benefit? • Dimock and Tucker— o Hiring quotas—if white and male, at bottom of list. Anything else, higher.  Aren’t hiring quotas just another form of unjust discrimination?  Or is it correcting an imbalance? Is that a valid response? o If believe in hiring quotas, then believe that end justifies the means  Consequentialism  Canadian Constitution—must not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, etc.. But, discrimination okay if it helps such identifiable groups for the sake of having more equal society with full participation o Non-descrimination  Kantian (deontological) o But, employment equity  Consequentialist o Both are together in Canadian constitution o Hiring quotas  Those who are for them argue on both utilitarian and deontological grounds  Justice – deontological o Justice  1) compensatory – somebody wronged me, now they owe me. Righted for wrongs. • Because certain people were unjustly discriminated in the past o Group membership alone is not proof of discrimination o Majority of people formerly discriminated against in past are not now the ones benefitting from hiring quotas  2) distributive – equal access, not to be discriminated against • How do we define that person’s special access? If we want to have a hiring quota, how do we categorize people? The blond, lesbian, black woman deserves to be hir
More Less

Related notes for PHI2397

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit