Do You Have a Right to a Job?

NIMBY said:

Was he a Federalist or a Democratic-Republican?
I still love the originals for saying "Creator".
I say it in class with no fear.
The simple idea of a "Creator" has helped me personally.
However, I would still liked to have been one of those scientists visited by the aliens.
Until then, i'll keep teaching Chemistry in my retirement.

Click to expand...

John Jay was a Federalist. He also was a patriot and one of the founding fathers of our nation.

Re: John Jay and the Constitution and "the Law of Nations, it can be found here-> jilp.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Volume%2014.../paust%20final%20pdf.p...

ReformCollege said:

What exactly do you define as a right? I think that a workers' corps may be a good idea given that the work they do is actually productive and pays a reasonable market wage. But that is simply making it easier for them to get a job. Its not forcing employers to keep them on payroll against their whim and its not guaranteeing them employment regardless of how good/bad of an employee they are. That's just stupid.

Click to expand...

Not a right to a specific job. Just a right to obtain employment, and a program to facilitate it. Probably needs to go hand in hand with the right to a living wage, too. The point is not to enslave people, it's to get people self-sufficient and able to engage in commerce and have high enough income to pay taxes.

Paschendale said:

Not a right to a specific job. Just a right to obtain employment, and a program to facilitate it. Probably needs to go hand in hand with the right to a living wage, too. The point is not to enslave people, it's to get people self-sufficient and able to engage in commerce and have high enough income to pay taxes.

Click to expand...

Who should provide the guaranteed jobs?

Nobody has a right to a job. The flip side of that question would be "Does anyone who doesn't want to work have a right to be supported by the government?" Aka, unconditional welfare to all who want it, no questions asked. (Yes, I know some feel we already have that, but trust me, we don't! Yet. :lol: )

In a perfect world, everyone who wants a job, needs a job, and is capable of performing a job would have a job. This is not a perfect world. America is based on equal opportunity for all, and in a perfect world that would be true. Again, not everyone will have the same opportunities, and life will be more difficult for some than others. People do have the opportunity to pursue education and training, so that they are qualified for jobs that become available. Alas, there are no guarantees in life that there will always be enough jobs for those who want them, or enough qualified applicates for employers who need them.

Where people do have the "right" to a job, I guaran-damn-tee that they are living under a government that tells them what job they will have whether they like it or not, and does not afford the opportunity to pursue any other options. That's certainly not what I want, and I doubt many others want that either.

Paschendale said:

Not a right to a specific job. Just a right to obtain employment, and a program to facilitate it. Probably needs to go hand in hand with the right to a living wage, too. The point is not to enslave people, it's to get people self-sufficient and able to engage in commerce and have high enough income to pay taxes.

Click to expand...

I don't believe in a "right" to work. I believe we should do everything we can to make work more obtainable for everyone, but simply guaranteeing employment is a dangerous road to travel down. But the article goes beyond just a program to facilitate work, it specifically calls for employers to have to pay for fired employee's jobs training and find another job for them. Essentially, the article wants to make all laborers tenured employees. What is ironic about the article, is they mention how new workers at a GM or Ford plant start off making half of what they used to. Well considering its a socialist worker's party, I assume they are pro union. Well... it was the union who made that deal. They compromised on behalf of new workers coming in to protect the expensive benefits of current employees. So if they have a problem with new employees only making $14/hour, they better damn call their own union bosses rather then claim its just the work of the greedy capitalists.

The problem is the article really rubs me the wrong way. The rhetoric is just far more inflammatory then the proposal.

I do think that having a jobs corps would be a good idea, because it means that the "buffer" of unemployed laborers would still be working rather then simply idling around and losing job skills in the process.

The pay would have to be just a sliver below the market wage for similar jobs in the private sector though. The point isn't to crowd out the private sector, its to absorb its layoffs while it recovers. It shouldn't be used as a tool to drive up wages, which may lead to more unemployment and/or crowding out, but rather I think it would create resistance if you will, against falling wages. The program could work. I just am not sure I can trust the government to run it correctly.

If people have a right to jobs, who's going to provide those jobs? Government can't hire everybody.

DiAnna said:

Where people do have the "right" to a job, I guaran-damn-tee that they are living under a government that tells them what job they will have whether they like it or not, and does not afford the opportunity to pursue any other options. That's certainly not what I want, and I doubt many others want that either.

Click to expand...

This is a really good point, Di. Obviously nobody can guarantee that you get your dream job so the only way the government could guarantee you a job would be if it's one they want you to have.

I think the Constitution protects the right to look for work and to use your own labor to work in exchange for something of value. But it doesn't guarentee that you will find work or that you will work.

Yes.

You have the right to a job (unless you are illegal alien) but you are not entitled to it.

Right = permission

Permission does not mean someone will provide it for you.

Canell said:

Yes.

You have the right to a job (unless you are illegal alien) but you are not entitled to it.

Right = permission

Permission does not mean someone will provide it for you.

Click to expand...

sorry thats incorrect ....a right is an absolute, meaning you act without government authority.

a privilege, requires a higher authority to act on

there is no right in america to a good or a service in the American constitution, because that would deify natural law, which is what rights are based on.

ernst barkmann said:

sorry thats incorrect ....a right is an absolute, meaning you act without government authority.

Click to expand...

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system.

Please, continue reading here

Click to expand...

As far as I know, a job is a legal right. eace

While I don't think people have a right to demand a job from anybody, they certainly have the legal right to work for anyone that wants to hire them. Also, I think society would be greatly improved if the government was the employer of last resort. It seems perfectly sensible to merge welfare and unemployment with public works. They could set crappy wages and give very good on-the-job training, so people would naturally want to get out into the private sector as soon as possible.

There are plenty of jobs out there. They just aren't very good ones for the most part. I took a job that pays about 2/3rds of the job i was laid off from. Life simply stinks at times. And for those who think a job is beneath them, that is a defeatist attitude. The best way to get a better job is to be employed in any job, no matter how bad it is. With so many applicants per positions available, you can bet an employer will hire someone willing to work those jobs before hiring someone of equal qualifications that is not willing to work them.

X Factor said:

Surfing the net, I came across this.

The Right to a job | Socialist Equality Party

Interesting point of view. What do you think? Is having a job a right?

Adding the poll right now. Answers will be yes, no and I don't know.

Click to expand...

No, you don't have a natural right to a job. No, you don't have a constitutional right to a job. And no, we shouldn't provide a civil right to a job.

Everyone has a natural right to try and survive/live, and I believe a constitutionally protected right to SEEK employment due to the protection of association. But no one has a right to HAVE a job, nor should they.

ernst barkmann said:

simple.....NOTHING can be a right if it is a good or a service.......its unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Guns are a good. Do we not have a right to guns?

Harshaw said:

The way they define it, that it is OWED to you, no. Emphatically no.

Do you have the freedom to seek and procure employment? Yes.

Click to expand...

And this is where many libertarians often stumble. It is confusing for many non-libertarians when the claim is made that guns are a right, but jobs are not. Why should one be considered a right but not the other?

But I think you made your position clear.

I do not think anybody has the right to a job, but they do have an obligation to contribute something constructive towards supporting themselves.

Similarly, those in a position of providing a job have an obligation to deal with those they hire in a fair, equitable and loyal manner. Those who expect loyalty need to give it.

When one side of the equation is preoccupied with trying to do as little as possible because they feel a sense of entitlement and the other half of the equation treats people as a disposable commodity to exploit at will, nobody wins.

lizzie said:

No, you don't have a right to a job, however, I would not be opposed to creating job tasks for a good percentage of people on some of the social welfare programs. In the private sector, it's pretty much determined by supply/demand market forces, and that can't be guaranteed as a right without taking away incentive.

Click to expand...

At least here in Colorado Springs, if you are deemed able to work, you must complete 40 hours of community service per month in order to receive food stamps.

Geoist said:

And this is where many libertarians often stumble. It is confusing for many non-libertarians when the claim is made that guns are a right, but jobs are not. Why should one be considered a right but not the other?

But I think you made your position clear.

Click to expand...

A right to a gun is simply that the government cannot prevent you from obtaining one. Not that the government has to ensure you have one. A job is no different. The government should not be preventing you from getting a job, but they are in no way responsible to ensure you have one.

APACHERAT said:

No.

Double no since it's not mentioned in the Constitution.

But there are some who believe that illegal aliens have a right to take American jobs away from citizens.

Click to expand...

While I'm all for immigration reform and ending the flood of illegals into the country, I do not believe that they are actually taking that many jobs away from Americans. Most of the places where I see illegals working would hire Americans for the same job if Americans would actually do those jobs or at least do those jobs for the available pay or reasonable pay. We do not see people flooding from welfare to unskilled manual labor jobs that pay near minimum wage, unless of course the job is in an air conditioned facility and doesn't actually require high amount of actual physical labor. Many of people who hire the illegals would also hire Americans instead, if they could actually get Americans to do the job and do it at the required level. For those who think the jobs should simply pay more, remember, the more labor cost the more the goods and services cost.

X Factor said:

For anyone who votes yes (and responds to this thread in a way that makes sense...)

Click to expand...

I voted yes.

Look up the definition of a "liberty" right as opposed to a "claim" right.

Everyone has the liberty right to a job.

This doesn't imply that you (or the government, or anyone else) has an obligation to provide a job (as would be required if it were a claims right).

It simply means that everyone has the right to work and nobody can take that right away.

If you don't want to give me a job, and the government doesn't want to give me a job, I have the right to look elsewhere, or to obtain new skills/education which make me employable, or to open my own business, with the end being to obtain a job.

Kreton said:

A right to a gun is simply that the government cannot prevent you from obtaining one. Not that the government has to ensure you have one. A job is no different. The government should not be preventing you from getting a job, but they are in no way responsible to ensure you have one.

Click to expand...

So should the government ensure that you get a gun?

Geoist said:

And this is where many libertarians often stumble. It is confusing for many non-libertarians when the claim is made that guns are a right, but jobs are not. Why should one be considered a right but not the other?

But I think you made your position clear.

Click to expand...

No Libertarian claims you have a right to have a material thing provided to you. There is no contradiction.

Geoist said:

So should the government ensure that you get a gun?

Click to expand...

Please read the post you quoted. It in the very same post.