Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

QUESTIONS ABOUT GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF BUSINESSES - Coggle Diagram

- - - - I think there should be laws set in place for repair shops to have certain papers that show that they have experiences and knowledge in this field. Something like a degree or a diploma (I don't really know)
        
        This makes me think of the "revolving door" issue - who would be in charge of deciding who is a qualified tech repair person? Probably someone who came from a big tech company! -Ethan
  - - - This is the manufacturer's main argument - as you and Eunbeen said, they want to protect their products from low-quality repairpeople. -Ethan
  - - - I think rural areas and cities should have the different regulation. For rural areas, I think they should have "right to repair", especially farmers to fix their farm equipment. However, for urban area, as they can access to many repair shops, I do not think that urban area should have "right to repair". -Cathy
        
        Interesting! How would you designate what places are considered "rural" and what places are not? Because each state has big cities and rural areas too. -Ethan
        
        Yeah I think separating rural and city is too complicated, so I would just say "right to repair" depends on type of the industry. If it's high-end electronic product like smartphone, company should not give right to repair as they might get sued if random individual tried to repair their product and failed, and somehow sue the company.
  - - - Well, it is true that not all unofficial shops might not be as skillful as the official repair shop. However, there are a lot of skillful technicians who have a lot of experience repairing diverse electronic devices, who might sometimes be even better than the technicians in the official repair shop. Also if companies were already conscious of the environment, why would they set the repair price in a very high price? I think companies sometimes do this because they want the user to just by their new electronic device since the cost of it is similar to the repair cost. It's somewhat their marketing strategy, I guess. - Jenny
  - - - Agree with Cathy, there is no guarantee of quality during such trade. People are going to blame the company for any incurred issues even though they fix the tech with third-party repair workers.
  - - - I agree that the company should give a right to repair because it can be helpful for other people who cannot get provided the repair services.
        -Seung Hyun-
      - That's an interesting point, but I also wonder if large companies have better partnerships and practices for dealing with e-waste than small, local shops. -Ethan
  - - - Adding onto this point, consumer's privacy and cyber security can also be in danger. -cathy-
      - I think it's a very good point, too. Maybe fixing your electronic products at a certain place assigned by your company is not as risky as repairing it at your own place. I think it's good for both end. Furthermore, a company would not choose a low quality shop for you to fix your product, it should be some place credible and high quality (chau)
- - - - Insurance companies should take into account the background of how person got into the current condition. If it seems that the negative health condition of the client is not his or her fault, companiew shouldn't charge more money on that -David
        
        So someone who was born with diabetes should not have to pay more because it's not their fault, right? -Ethan
        
        Actually, I changed my mind. Companies can charge money on preexisting conditions because otherwise they lose profits. Insurance companies exist to make profits, not to take care of people's health. Sad but true.
        
        Definitely sad! We're also working under the American assumption that health insurance is private. This would be a very different conversation in many other countries, especially in Europe, where health care is mostly paid for by the government, not by private insurance. -Ethan
        
        I think it would be more risky if health companies cover the client's pre-exisiting condition's cost. If that person's illness happens to become more severe, all responsibilities are held upon the health insurance company, even though the illness happened before a person's health insurance started. I don't think it's fair for a company to be responsible for that. However, if in any case the illness is very severe, then the company should take some consideration in supporting the cost- chau
        
        How exactly should they "take some consideration?" Do you think insurance companies will do the right thing, or focus on profits, if these decisions are not regulated by government? -Ethan
    - - I agree with Nick's opinion. In the first place, many people sign up for health insurance to treat their existing pre-conditions. The company should do more research and establish policies to determine who they will be charging more. - Jenny
  - - - I agree with this idea, but I also think that to treat pre-existing diseases, it requires lots of money. To pay for them, the health care companies should pay a lot. So, I think the company can charge them more than people who don't have pre-existing diseases.
        
        Bo Gyeong
  - - - 1) Who are you?
        2) Same question I asked to Seo Hyun: What if someone has a pre-existing condition because they were in a car crash caused by a drunk driver, and now they need expensive medication to deal with whatever issue they're having? Should they have to pay more? -Ethan
      - In that case I think heath care companies should look at the current situation as well as the client’s background to decide. Maya
        
        Do you think there should be any laws about it, or should it only be up to the insurance companies to decide? - Ethan
- - - - I think that Gig work companies should be required to offer full benefits because the not only Uber, there are tons of country that depends a lot on those worker and by setting the PP 22 would help those worker to actually get a fair paid and a fair treatment like a fulltime employee.
      - Should a driver who only works 5 hours a week be offered full benefits? Minimum wage? What do you think the requirements should be? -Ethan
    - - So does this mean that anyone doing a job that does not require a specific degree or qualification should not be guaranteed minimum wage? Farmers, factory workers - no minimum wage? -Ethan
        
        tzuchin: this involves moral issue and whether we want to think in a humane way (because some people just don't have the opportunity to obtain a higher education). but, i'm pretty positive that there are people out there applying a job because the company guarantee full benefits and minimum wage (probably to attract workers). and, this decreases the quality of the working condition of other workers who are really seeking a proper job with a degree.
  - - - But wouldn't this decrease the total amount of Uber Driver since now they have to limit workers?
    - - I disagree with that because why there are still gig workers even though they cannot get full benefit? Also, it's individuals choice to work as gig workers. It is individuals' ability to get good, well paying job. - Seung-Chan
  - - - It would be a lower risk but one of the main reason why people left Taxi for Grab is due them being able to keep 90% of the profit, compared to something like Taxi, which does pay minimum wage but more income fee. Also the minimum wage in countries like Vietnam is also non-existent. - Ryan
  - - - I agree with you on that we should provide benefits and minimum wage to the temporary workers, but under a strict law. It's not ideal for workers who don't work as much to enjoy the same benefits as full time workers who really tried thier best in order to become a full time employee. - Won Young
  - - - Some people might say - if you're not happy with the gig work job, look for a different job that does offer benefits. What do you think about that idea? -Ethan
      - Even though they worked hard, they worked on some certain conditions. However, full-time workers should work most of their weekdays. Since there is a large gap between their work times, the gig workers do not have to get provided full benefits. -Seung Hyun-
    - - So, sort of a "let the market decide" approach? The argument being that, if it's really so bad driving for Uber, then people won't do it. Is that the main argument here? -Ethan
        
        Essentially, yes! These benefits could serve as an advertising move to get people to join the company. Like 'hey, we offer benefits just like full-time workers! just work to this extend and you'll be qualified!' -Luna
  - - - Shouldn't they negotiate the wage before they sign the contract? - Seung-Chan
        
        Do you think the individual driver has a lot of negotiating power? Can they demand a higher rate from Uber? -Ethan
    - - What if they only work 5 hours a week? Should they still be guaranteed minimum wage? -Ethan
    - - What if they work full time (40+ hours/week) as a driver? Should they get the same benefits then? -Ethan
- - - - because right to work law will inevitably reduce the size of the union (since workers are not obliged to join the union), workers will obtain less power in negotiation with the companies. And most workers are composed of middle class people. -David
      - tzuchin: if every worker join the union, they would have the same opportunity. Joining the union allows them to find job easier, since the companies could only hire workers who are in an union, it increases their chance of getting a spot.
        
        That is easier said than done. Unions are not easy to join. Like I stated before YOU NEED CONNECTIONS TO JOIN THE UNION. For example, the fire fighting industry in the U.S, the union there has made it so that you need have some connection to someone from the union(or be from the union) in order to join the fire fighting industry, making what should be a very common job, something very exclusive. This will harm the middle class more than it will help since not every middle class person has the connection required to do join this "exclusive" industry now. - Bang Tran
  - - - It offer help to individuals who don't have the ability to pay for union's fee. It would also create reductions in property taxes. A great choice for those who's working minimum wages. (Nick)
        
        Yes, though usually unions are able to negotiate a much higher salary than minimum wage because of their increased bargaining power over the company. But that's a good point - maybe some people can't afford to pay union fees up front. I wonder if unions offer the option to have a little money taken from your paycheck each month rather than requiring up-front payment before beginning work. -Ethan
      - tzuchin: i found out that an average worker (in an union or not) has "approximately $1,500 less per year" in a state with right to work laws than workers in a state without it.
        
        Wow, it sounds like these right to work laws really do lower the negotiating power of employees. I wonder how much a normal union fee is - because if you have $1,500 more in income, but have to pay a $1,000 union fee, it might not make a big difference. But if the union membership is only $50, then it makes a big difference! -Ethan
        
        tzuchin: based on the internet, the average annual cost of union dues is $400 or about 2 hours of your salary every month. i think it is directly deducted from worker's paycheck, so it depends on the amount of money each person makes, which does make a difference.
        
        Sounds like overall the unions do benefit the employees in terms of average salary, to the tune of ~$1,100/year. However, there are also downsides to a union. For example, in a teachers' union, your salary is only determined by your years of experience and your degree because the contract has to apply to ALL teachers. That means a really bad, but experienced teacher could earn a much higher salary than an amazing, newer teacher. Overall, the average salary is a bit higher, but the money doesn't always go to the best employees. -Ethan
  - - - This is a brilliant point as well! The establishment of an union would be defeating its purpose if they just gang up to discriminate other employees. - Luna
      - I definitely agree with both Won Young's and Luna's opinion. What's the whole purpose of an Union? It is to protect ALL workers by negotiating with the employers. If they are only protecting workers in the union and giving disadvantages to the non-union workers, then is the union fulfilling their role? I don't think so. - Jenny
        
        I agree with Jenny because Union's absolute power on hiring people cannot provide fair conditions and rights to work. This can violate the fairness during hiring workers. It is likely to be used as some unfair getting employment.
        
        I also think that if the union makes workers hard to be hired, it loses its existing purpose. Union should be existed to help workers to negotiate with employers. Hiring only union members is discrimination. Every workers should have equal chances, but the union can help the members under the union.
        
        Bo Gyeong
        
        agree, I also think that the purpose of un is protecting all workers equally. and if UN protects only workers in UN, I think it loses the meaning and purpose of true UN. -heesoon
      - I agree with Won Young, seems like there is biases toward the union members and this can lead to discrimination against non-union member within unionized workplaces. Maya
      - But, to protect workers, there is cost to do so. So, when every people just want benefits not paying for it, will it be sustainable and giving effective benefit? - Seung-Chan
        
        Can you elaborate? What costs are you talking about? -Luna
        
        Costs like to run union like wage for negotiator, and manager of the union - Seung Chan