# Resolved: US labor law needs reform **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 14, 2012, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013 "2012-12-14T09:58:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/1 "2012-12-14T09:58:43Z")
I posed a couple of questions to **Human Action** in the Michigan RTW thread, but it’s such a big concept and I’m pretty sure other people will have opinions and thoughts on it that I thought it deserved it’s own thread instead of becoming a major hijack to that one. So, let’s take it as a given that US labor law needs reform; it no longer adequately serves the public interest. 1. How would you go about reforming things in labor law? 2. What would be the goals of your reforms and how would you go about trying to implement them? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/2 "2012-12-14T11:44:51Z")
Complete hijack, but “Labor”? US spellings also need reform. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/3 "2012-12-14T14:29:13Z")
Labor law in the United States is a jumbled mess. It got that way through a series of regulations and counter-regulations passed over the years, to support one or another faction that wishes to compete via the statehouse instead of the marketplace. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > 1. How would you go about reforming things in labor law? I would replace all federal labor law with this, section 7(a) of the struck-down National Industrial Recovery Act (and the section that defined the penalties for violation). > [@NIRA title 1 section 7(a)](#): > > Employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and shall be free from the interference restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. In other words, the right to free assembly means that workers can form unions to bargain collectively, and force may not be used to prevent this. That’s really it. Everything else is just free choices and the right to contract. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > 1. What would be the goals of your reforms and how would you go about trying to implement them? The goal would be a free market without coercion by either side. Implementing reform would require repeal of the NILA, Taft-Hartley, the Norris-La Guardia Act, the Railway Labor Act, and sections of a few other laws, and amending the Clayton Act to remove the antitrust exemption for unions. There’s also a body of federal court decisions to deal with. I’m not certain how this can be dealt with; if a law is repealed, do court decisions interpreting the law cease to be in effect? I don’t know. > [@AK84](#): > > Complete hijack, but “Labor”? US spellings also need reform. We Americans are more efficient, we eliminated 17% of the word without losing its meaning. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/4 "2012-12-14T16:40:34Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > and amending the Clayton Act to remove the antitrust exemption for unions. I was hitting this up a bit in the other thread, and I’m not actually certain this is entirely wise. Largely, the problem here is that it’s plausible that union representation, since unions gain negotiating power by having a larger share of the skilled workforce, is a natural monopoly. What we want to avoid is having de-facto union breaking by means of anti-trust lawsuits against unions that are not otherwise abusing their monopoly power. It’s also the case that the Clayton Act only immunizes unions from anti-trust actions in the sense that union activities such as collective bargaining cannot be seen as de-facto restraint of trade or conspiracy. [15 U.S. Code § 17 - Antitrust laws not applicable to labor organizations | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/17) ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/5 "2012-12-14T18:00:55Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Largely, the problem here is that it’s plausible that union representation, since unions gain negotiating power by having a larger share of the skilled workforce, is a natural monopoly. What we want to avoid is having de-facto union breaking by means of anti-trust lawsuits against unions that are not otherwise abusing their monopoly power. > > It’s also the case that the Clayton Act only immunizes unions from anti-trust actions in the sense that union activities such as collective bargaining cannot be seen as de-facto restraint of trade or conspiracy. [15 U.S. Code § 17 - Antitrust laws not applicable to labor organizations | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/17) I agree that a natural monopoly is not necessarily a problem for the market. The statute seems pretty vague to my layman’s reading, in that it just protects the “existence and operation” of labor organizations and protects their rights of “lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof.” So long as the law isn’t used to allow unions to act in restraint of trade (preventing strikebreakers from going to work, for example), then I see your point. I’ll do some more research this weekend on this aspect of labor law. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/6 "2012-12-14T20:41:28Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Labor law in the United States is a jumbled mess. It got that way through a series of regulations and counter-regulations passed over the years, to support one or another faction that wishes to compete via the statehouse instead of the marketplace. The same could be said of laws in many fields. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/7 "2012-12-14T20:53:53Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > The same could be said of laws in many fields. Agreed, labor law is not unique in this regard, but this thread was spun off of one about right-to-work laws, hence the labor focus. ---
**Author:** ![CutterJohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/91b2a8/32.png) [@CutterJohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CutterJohn)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/8 "2012-12-14T23:10:40Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That’s really it. Everything else is just free choices and the right to contract. This would pretty much preclude unions from forming in the first place, at least in already established or large companies. As soon as the company caught a whiff of anyone organizing, they would be gone. You have to have clandestine meetings, and have an extreme amount of support, with no word leaking back to the bosses throughout any of this, before you’d have a hope of success. Per the OP: In my perfect little world, there would be no unions. Not really a fan of them, despite my previous statements, since they exist in an adversarial nature with management. There would also be no corporations. Instead, everything would be employee owned or cooperatives. This, in my uninformed opinion, would keep everyones head on straight. Still get the free market competition pushing for efficiency, but those doing the work are those that reap the benefit of success. I’m sure that has innumerable issues that make it a horrible idea, but it sounds nice. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/9 "2012-12-14T23:35:25Z")
There’s no such thing as the right to contract, at least not under US federal law. There is a general principle established by the courts of _freedom of contract_, but there is nothing which provides a general right to enter into contracts. Individuals may have a guaranteed right to enter into certain types of contract, of course, and employment contracts are one of them, but government meddling in employment contracts is generally seen as a good thing. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The same could be said of laws in many fields. Yes, but elected legislatures have done most of the jumbling. Congress hasn’t significantly amended the NLRA since about 1959, so the jumbling has largely been done by an unelected (though not unaccountable) administrative body, the NLRB. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/10 "2012-12-15T04:35:26Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I agree that a natural monopoly is not necessarily a problem for the market. The statute seems pretty vague to my layman’s reading, in that it just protects the “existence and operation” of labor organizations and protects their rights of “lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof.” > > So long as the law isn’t used to allow unions to act in restraint of trade (preventing strikebreakers from going to work, for example), then I see your point. I’ll do some more research this weekend on this aspect of labor law. I am personally under the impression that preventing strikebreakers is expressly illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/11 "2012-12-15T21:28:43Z")
For a subject that so many on this board seem to have strident opinions about, I see that this thread has almost no responses and even fewer actual reforms proposed. I see even fewer examples of concrete and actual criticism of specific labor laws. Considering the level of anti-union rhetoric that this board supplies whenever the subject comes up, I’m surprised at how little traction this thread has and at how insubstantial the responses have been so far. The impression I have so far is that “unions bad, Hulk smash” is about as far as most people’s thought processes go on this subject. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/12 "2012-12-15T21:43:43Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Complete hijack, but “Labor”? US spellings also need reform. The Romans would disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/13 "2012-12-17T04:12:15Z")
> [@Cutter John](#): > > This would pretty much preclude unions from forming in the first place, at least in already established or large companies. As soon as the company caught a whiff of anyone organizing, they would be gone. > > You have to have clandestine meetings, and have an extreme amount of support, with no word leaking back to the bosses throughout any of this, before you’d have a hope of success. Considering that most of the largest unions today pre-date the NLRA certification process, I have to differ with you here. > [@Cutter John](#): > > Per the OP: In my perfect little world, there would be no unions. Not really a fan of them, despite my previous statements, since they exist in an adversarial nature with management. There would also be no corporations. Instead, everything would be employee owned or cooperatives. This, in my uninformed opinion, would keep everyones head on straight. Still get the free market competition pushing for efficiency, but those doing the work are those that reap the benefit of success. Cooperatives are fine, as a choice. But if I want to put all of my money into a new venture, and can’t find or don’t want others to share the risk with me, then by all rights I should be sole owner. > [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > There’s no such thing as the right to contract, at least not under US federal law. You are correct, freedom of contract is what was intended. > [@Zeriel](#): > > I am personally under the impression that preventing strikebreakers is expressly illegal. It is (though it happens url=[Inquirer.com archives](http://articles.philly.com/2010-06-25/news/24963634_1_bat-attack-king-of-prussia-mall-construction-site)]anyway). I was using it as an example of restraint of trade that is unacceptable. To use a practice that is not presently illegal, how about preventing new members from joining, so as to drive up wages for existing members through false scarcity? > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > For a subject that so many on this board seem to have strident opinions about, I see that this thread has almost no responses and even fewer actual reforms proposed. > > I see even fewer examples of concrete and actual criticism of specific labor laws. > > Considering the level of anti-union rhetoric that this board supplies whenever the subject comes up, I’m surprised at how little traction this thread has and at how insubstantial the responses have been so far. > > The impression I have so far is that “unions bad, Hulk smash” is about as far as most people’s thought processes go on this subject. I don’t think that conclusion is fair. For one, this is a spin-off thread; discussion in the other thread is lively and ongoing. For two, this thread has seen exactly two formal proposals: mine and **Cutter John** ’s, which were quite different. Folks in the other thread complained that employers had too much power, but they’ve not come to this thread to propose new pro-union laws either. So I fail to see how this thread proves that anti-union people are thoughtless on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/14 "2012-12-17T07:15:07Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > So I fail to see how this thread proves that anti-union people are thoughtless on the subject. You completely misinterpreted that. I just meant that union issues usually draw many posts and there is lively discussion of the specific issue and much anti- (and some pro-) union debate. There was no slur in my remarks and none should have been inferred. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/15 "2012-12-17T08:54:12Z")
Hm. I am seriously not fond of unions. I would have to consider what I would do with them. What I would do - Pay scales. I see absolutely no reason CEOs and high officers need to get paid ungodly huge amounts of money, nor do I like the current situation with stockholders getting considered before employees. I feel that the common employees are getting treated like shit, overworked because companies refuse to hire adequate staffing because the stockholders need to get paid their money, the officers need to get their bonuses and large salaries so they skimp on the regular employees. Companies need to adequately staff. The bullshit ‘The Customer is always right’ crap that makes employers force their customer service/front line employees have to suck up shit from jackass entitlement whore customers. Try reading the message board Customers Suck sometimes. Companies make policy about returns, refunds, service issues and then the customers whine, scream, shout and get nasty towards the employee trying to enforce the rules, then management caves in and gives them what they whine for. There was the infamous article in Readers Digest on how to be a suckass customer and force companies into caving in by acting like a freaking 2 year old throwing a tantrum. Make a policy and follow it. Back up your employees when they try to do business according to policy. Sick and vacation time. Europe seems to run just fine giving employees 20 days [4 work weeks] of vacation. Not sure what the sick policy is though. But companies have to stop telling the employees that if they are sick they have to take time off, the penalizing them for trying to take adequate time off to be NOT CONTAGIOUS and actually get well. Paid sick days would also be great - I know a number of people who go to work sick because they cant afford to not work. That leads into my next plea - a living wage. I know it is a nasty cycle - you hike pay, then employers hike what they charge because they have to pay more to the employees. maybe if you chop the huge compensation packages to upper management, and do something about the whole stockholder thing you might be able to pay the employees more. In a perfect world housing would be adequate, and affordable, food would be affordable, wages would be livable, employers would listen to employee issues and resolve them peacefully. And another thing - I can remember employment contracts - my dad had them. Would it freaking kill an employer to hire people with a contract stating that they will be employed for 5 years at whatever pay scale, whatever benefits so that the employee would actually feel _valued_ and secure? With obvious standards that the employee is to meet so there is equality and stability? I absolutely hate the whole thing where the employer has all the freaking power and can fire the employee for pretty much no reason at all… ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/16 "2012-12-17T14:10:34Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > You completely misinterpreted that. I just meant that union issues usually draw many posts and there is lively discussion of the specific issue and much anti- (and some pro-) union debate. > > There was no slur in my remarks and none should have been inferred. My mistake, then. I apologize. There is a lively discussion in the other thread, it just hasn’t migrated. Oh well. > [@aruvqan](#): > > Pay scales. I see absolutely no reason CEOs and high officers need to get paid ungodly huge amounts of money, nor do I like the current situation with stockholders getting considered before employees. I feel that the common employees are getting treated like shit, overworked because companies refuse to hire adequate staffing because the stockholders need to get paid their money, the officers need to get their bonuses and large salaries so they skimp on the regular employees. Companies need to adequately staff. Wage controls are a seriously bad idea. Stockholders are facing risk, having paid to own a portion of a company, it is reasonable to expect the company to act with due dilligence in increasing the value of their shares. Employees face no such risk. > [@arvquan](#): > > The bullshit ‘The Customer is always right’ crap that makes employers force their customer service/front line employees have to suck up shit from jackass entitlement whore customers. Try reading the message board Customers Suck sometimes. Companies make policy about returns, refunds, service issues and then the customers whine, scream, shout and get nasty towards the employee trying to enforce the rules, then management caves in and gives them what they whine for. There was the infamous article in Readers Digest on how to be a suckass customer and force companies into caving in by acting like a freaking 2 year old throwing a tantrum. Make a policy and follow it. Back up your employees when they try to do business according to policy. Having worked retail and been undermined in this manner, I can absolutely sympathize with this, but it’s a matter of company policy, not law. > [@aruvquan](#): > > Sick and vacation time. Europe seems to run just fine giving employees 20 days [4 work weeks] of vacation. Not sure what the sick policy is though. But companies have to stop telling the employees that if they are sick they have to take time off, the penalizing them for trying to take adequate time off to be NOT CONTAGIOUS and actually get well. Paid sick days would also be great - I know a number of people who go to work sick because they cant afford to not work. Again, policy, not law. What if I’d rather get a higher wage than get sick or vacation time? Isn’t that between my and my employer? > [@aruvqan](#): > > That leads into my next plea - a living wage. I know it is a nasty cycle - you hike pay, then employers hike what they charge because they have to pay more to the employees. maybe if you chop the huge compensation packages to upper management, and do something about the whole stockholder thing you might be able to pay the employees more. There’s also the unemployment issue. The higher you push the higher wage, the farther we’ll be from full employment. Say you set it at $10 per hour. Say I the business owner realize that I need one more set of hands on weekends, but that this labor will add $8 per hour in revenue. I can’t legally offer that wage, so the job goes undone, and the person I would have hired remains unemployed. > [@aruvqan](#): > > In a perfect world housing would be adequate, and affordable, food would be affordable, wages would be livable, employers would listen to employee issues and resolve them peacefully. Certainly. I history has shown that the best way to get there is via a free market. > [@aruvqan](#): > > And another thing - I can remember employment contracts - my dad had them. Would it freaking kill an employer to hire people with a contract stating that they will be employed for 5 years at whatever pay scale, whatever benefits so that the employee would actually feel _valued_ and secure? With obvious standards that the employee is to meet so there is equality and stability? I absolutely hate the whole thing where the employer has all the freaking power and can fire the employee for pretty much no reason at all… This would also lock the employee into the job. What if a better opportunity came along, or you markedly improved your value to the employer during the 5 years? I shudder to think where I’d be if I signed a 5-year contract to work retail. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/17 "2012-12-17T15:36:34Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Considering that most of the largest unions today pre-date the NLRA certification process, I have to differ with you here. Consider that the pre-NLRA labor movement essentially constituted a literal war between workers and employers and their private armies, such as the Pinkertons. Is that really the model that we would like to return to? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/18 "2012-12-17T16:14:43Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Consider that the pre-NLRA labor movement essentially constituted a literal war between workers and employers and their private armies, such as the Pinkertons. Is that really the model that we would like to return to? Let us look at the [Homestead Strike of 1892](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike) as an example, since the Pinkertons were involved. The bloodshed occurred when 300 armed Pinkerton agents tried to disembark from river barges, pursuant to entering the plant and securing it for the arrival of strikebreakers. The union forces, several thousand in number, determined to keep the plant closed, opposed the landing, and shots were exchanged. I would argue that the power the state has grown tremendously since 1892. The forces available to the state to keep public order have likewise grown. Were a company to put together a 300-man army to enter a plant closed by thousands of hostile union strikers, I feel that the government would play a larger role now than it did in 1892, sufficient to prevent open gunfights. The public simply no longer tolerates such skirmishes, and law enforcement accordingly prevents them. This is irrespective of points of labor law, and is a general truism. So, to sum up, there is a third model we can try today: non-violent negotiation under a free market, with the government acting to keep the peace, enforce contracts, and defend rights of property. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/19 "2012-12-17T20:35:03Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > My mistake, then. I apologize. There is a lively discussion in the other thread, it just hasn’t migrated. Oh well. No apology necessary, but thanks for offering. I wasn’t offended and I didn’t think you had done so maliciously; I was just clarifying. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > This would also lock the employee into the job. What if a better opportunity came along, or you markedly improved your value to the employer during the 5 years? I shudder to think where I’d be if I signed a 5-year contract to work retail. Well, you’d be free to negotiate the length of your contract as one of the terms. And sometimes you have to miss out on one thing because you committed to another. Like when you have a big piece of apple pie and just as you finish, someone comes home with ice cream. You missed the chance for pie a la mode because you wanted the pie _now_. Tough shit. Welcome to living as a grown up. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2012, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013/20 "2012-12-18T13:13:37Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Well, you’d be free to negotiate the length of your contract as one of the terms. And sometimes you have to miss out on one thing because you committed to another. Like when you have a big piece of apple pie and just as you finish, someone comes home with ice cream. You missed the chance for pie a la mode because you wanted the pie now. Tough shit. Welcome to living as a grown up. Would you? That’s not what **aruvqan** advocated. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-us-labor-law-needs-reform/644013.md?page=2)