That's a complete strawman. Nobody is claiming that workers' rights should be limited so that employers can make more money.

People are claiming that workers' rights should be limited to the same extent that employers' rights are limited (i.e. that either party can end the relationship at any time and without any specific reason) so as to avoid giving excess power to one party or the other.

The employer inherently has more power than the employee. That is why worker's rights are important.

The business belongs to the employer typically, they should have far more power over their own business than an average employee does. Inverting that is crazy. I take a job at your 30 year old business that you've run for your entire adult lifetime, now I have more power over it than you do, all because I took a job = perpetual stagnation ala France.

Ok, now do "I took a job at a huge multinational that you've worked at for your entire adult lifetime, now I have more power over your job than you do, all because I graduated with a minor in HR last month".

And? That's the decision of the person who owns the business. Not yours, and not the HR person's.

The person who owns the business has decided that this is the process by which he wants employees vetted because they do not have the time to personally oversee every decision.

See, you've actually moved the goalposts here and you may not have realized it.

I'm not sure if you read the comment I was responding to, but it sounds like if you had, you would agree that it was presenting a totally irrelevant argument.

No it's not. He was talking about the owner losing power over his own business due to hiring an employee.

That is not comparable to two employees with different responsibilities.

He was making irrelevant points about the owner having put their whole life into a business for 30 years and an employee being brand new. None of those are relevant to whether an owner should have more power than an employee, unless he'd like to make exceptions for e.g long-term employees and someone who just bought an existing business.

Nobody wants to invert the power dynamic, just make it less top heavy.

"Nobody is claiming that workers' rights should be limited so that employers can make more money."

I mean, no one would come right out and say that, because it's a pretty stupid thing to say. There are, however, plenty of actions that have that outcome, without having the optics of coming right out and saying that you're favoring employers over employees. Being friendly to "job creators" and all that.

> Edit: point proven, HN doesn't care about labor rights and prefers rights for corporations over the actual workers who make the corporation.

There is plenty of room for disagreement among people who accept that workers should have rights -- for example, what should the rights be, how should those rights be balanced against the rights of management, etc.

There is room for disagreement but there is certainly a strong anti labor sentiment on this board. There's a strong pro labor group as well, but I have seen people on here state outright that unions are inherently immoral and not just that unions as they have turned on in specific situations are bad.