Thread:Emmette Hernandez Coleman/@comment-681745-20140322080234/@comment-406947-20140323111003

The Libertarianism article says "when rich corporations force relatively weak employees to accept bad working conditions of face Unemployment this amounts to coercion". I'd say weather this is coercion depends on the circumstances. If this employee, who Ill call "Bob" could easily find a better job, he wouldn't be facing unemployment by quiting. He could threaten to quit unless his working conditions were improved, and then Bob's employer, who I'll call MegaCorp, would need to chose between improving working conditions or losing Bob.

Bob cannot easily find a better job however, if he could he wouldn't be in this quagmire. The question is why can't Bob find a better job, did MegaCorp cause him to be unable to do so. If the answer is yes, it may well be coercion, but I'd need to know more information to really say. If the answer is no, there is no coercion:

MegaCorp offered him a job, albeit a lousy one, and Bob was and remains free to accept or refuse that offer. That Bob accepted the offer from MegaCorp in the first place means that that job, as lousy as it is, was (in his judgment) better then any other available option he had. It is unfortunate that Bob does not have a better option then his lousy job, but lousy or not that was what Bob chose. Bob was in a bad situation and MegaCorp offered him a job that, while still lousy, was better than any of bob's alternatives. If it weren't for MegaCorp Bob would have had to chose one of those worse alternatives, and you can bet that as soon as Bob has a better option MegaCorp will either improve Bob's working conditions or it will be bye bye Bob.