The existence of a skilled work force is the greatest resource that any country has.
Yes.
Companies exist to exploit this resource;
No. Companies exist to alleviate transaction costs. Companies also exist to exploit economies of scale. Your use of "exploit" is perjorative; companies don't exist to hold an advantage over the workforce, they exist to provide increased opportunities for the workforce.
are you saying that they should be able exploit this resource without being responsible for maintaining it?
Mandatory paid leave (for any reason) is not maintaining the workforce. The workforce does not need to be maintained. It is insulting and offensive to claim that the workforce is incapable of maintaining itself.
Maintaining the skilled workforce would be helping people keep their skills up. That is, sending them to educational seminars, providing tuition assistance, providing time to experiment with interesting new things. This is nice to have, but not necessary. All that is necessary is that people have sufficient non-work hours to have time to learn on their own. People are naturally curious, and most remain at least somewhat curious even after being sent thru formal schooling.
Employees do not (or should not) belong to specific employers. Employers are not (should not be) responsible for maintaining the education and well-being of their (current) employees. They are (should be) only responsible for not hindering said employees from looking after their own education and well-being. Any further responsibility (the "social safety net"; ensuring that personal disasters or sustained bad luck don't get people stuck at the bottom of the pile) belongs to society as a whole (either government or voluntary charities).
they exist to provide increased opportunities for the workforce.
That's purely a side effect. Obviously companies hire as few employees as necessary.
Companies exist to generate profits for their owners. They do this by utilizing resources, the primary of which is a skilled workforce.
The existence of a skilled workforce is a typical common good, and the standard "tragedy of the commons" parable applies. Their are two standard responses to the tragedy of the commons: privatization or government action.
So unless you can agree that employers can "own" their employees, government action and regulation is necessary to prevent tragedy of the commons type outcomes.
Comments
The existence of a skilled work force is the greatest resource that any country has.
Yes.
Companies exist to exploit this resource;
No. Companies exist to alleviate transaction costs. Companies also exist to exploit economies of scale. Your use of "exploit" is perjorative; companies don't exist to hold an advantage over the workforce, they exist to provide increased opportunities for the workforce.
are you saying that they should be able exploit this resource without being responsible for maintaining it?
Mandatory paid leave (for any reason) is not maintaining the workforce. The workforce does not need to be maintained. It is insulting and offensive to claim that the workforce is incapable of maintaining itself.
Maintaining the skilled workforce would be helping people keep their skills up. That is, sending them to educational seminars, providing tuition assistance, providing time to experiment with interesting new things. This is nice to have, but not necessary. All that is necessary is that people have sufficient non-work hours to have time to learn on their own. People are naturally curious, and most remain at least somewhat curious even after being sent thru formal schooling.
Employees do not (or should not) belong to specific employers. Employers are not (should not be) responsible for maintaining the education and well-being of their (current) employees. They are (should be) only responsible for not hindering said employees from looking after their own education and well-being. Any further responsibility (the "social safety net"; ensuring that personal disasters or sustained bad luck don't get people stuck at the bottom of the pile) belongs to society as a whole (either government or voluntary charities).
they exist to provide increased opportunities for the workforce.
That's purely a side effect. Obviously companies hire as few employees as necessary.
Companies exist to generate profits for their owners. They do this by utilizing resources, the primary of which is a skilled workforce.
The existence of a skilled workforce is a typical common good, and the standard "tragedy of the commons" parable applies. Their are two standard responses to the tragedy of the commons: privatization or government action.
So unless you can agree that employers can "own" their employees, government action and regulation is necessary to prevent tragedy of the commons type outcomes.