Worker's rights and web3

Usually, the labor market has operated under two primary models: a laissez-faire approach, which promotes minimal governmental interference, and a more regulated approach that assumes a protective role for the government.

The laissez-faire approach posits that the government should play a minimal role in the market, allowing the forces of supply and demand to dictate the terms of work agreements.

This concept forms the backbone of the gig economy, characterized by companies like Uber and Airbnb, where service providers operate as freelancers rather than formal employees.

The advantage of this model lies in its flexibility. Workers can choose their hours and control the volume and nature of their work. Moreover, it also presents opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurship, as companies and individuals can quickly adapt to the changing markets.

However, this model also raises concerns over job security and worker benefits. Gig workers often lack access to standard employee protections, such as health insurance, paid leave, and job security, making their income and work conditions unpredictable.

On the other end of the spectrum, the pro-regulation approach argues that the government should intervene in the market to protect workers' rights. This perspective is born from the belief that workers, being in need of income for survival, possess limited bargaining power in work agreements. Therefore, government regulation is necessary to ensure fair wages, safe working conditions, and access to basic benefits like health insurance.

The pro-regulation approach could potentially protect workers from exploitation and provide them with more stable employment conditions. However, excessive regulation can also stifle innovation, limit job creation, and reduce competition. Moreover, some argue that it limits individual freedom, imposing conditions on both employers and employees.

Another angle of the same conversation about business-governmental relationships is how much employers need to be regulated not just for the benefit of the workers but for the benefit of the state as well. For instance, should companies be responsible for ensuring the legal status of their prospective employees? This task, which effectively involves businesses in immigration control, is a diversion from their primary purpose - to find the most suitable individuals for specific roles, foster productivity, and generate profits. A less regulated approach would mean that businesses should be allowed to focus purely on market-based considerations, leaving political and societal issues to the government institutions, so that each side would focus on their own lanes.

These are some of the issues that stem from the same general question - how much natural operations of business should be affected by governmental control

Some of the questions we tackle at this event:

What are some of the benefits of governments regulating employer-employee relations?

What are some of the negatives of governments regulating employer-employee relations?

What are some of the benefits of businesses being involved in cultural, and political affairs?

What are some of the negatives of businesses being involved in cultural, and political affairs?

What are some of the ways employer-employee relations could be improved with web3?