On Feb 2, 2:17*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:56:14 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:





When my wife was in a similar situation, it would certainly have
caused me just as much hardship as it did you *if* I had provided all
the necessary care personally. =A0There were however plenty of friends
and family members who between them were able and willing to provide
the additional necessary care without significant detriment to
themselves.

The idea that complete strangers had any sort of duty to solve the
problem by paying for her care did not even cross my mind.

A better way to conceive of the question, is whether 'complete
strangers' have the right to penalise you for engaging in behaviours
that are pro-social and reasonably necessary. For example, should it
be the case that your boss is entitled to exclude you from your means
of earning, because you took a certain period of time off to care for
your wife and family? Should your bank be able to evict you from your
home, because you temporarily need to miss a payment for the same
reason?

You might say there was some sort of agreement that gave the employer
or bank the right to do this, but in fact I doubt Steve gave any real
assent to such behaviour - both his employer and his bank, were able
to use their relative position of power, to impose choices and
contractual terms on him that he considered unreasonable (or perhaps,
later realised how unreasonable they were), but was forced to accept
because of the inequality of power.

Hmmm - it seems a very strange way of looking at things. *But if that
is the way you believe things should work, here's a scenario I would
like you to consider:

You make a contract with a company for them to build you a
conservatory.

And who had more power to influence the terms of such a contract?



*All the materials are duly delivered, but nobody shows
up to actually build your conservatory. *Nevertheless, you are charged
for the job. *When you protest, you are told that the person who was
assigned to build your conservatory had to stay at home because his
wife became ill. *He obviously still needs money to live, so you must
still pay for the job that he would have done had he not been obliged
to care for his wife.

Would that be acceptable to you? *If not, why should it be acceptable
to any employer?

I should think I would be outraged. But then, if I was the builder
rather than the consumer, I would think the suggestion eminently
reasonable.

Seeing myself as being both a consumer and a producer, it is obvious
that in general I want some sort of balance between the two. And even
as the builder, I don't really want individual consumers to be stung
with covering the full cost of my family emergency. But clearly I want
some general power to take time off to deal with irregular
emergencies, without total collapse of my lifestyle and reduction to
penury.