Neither Government should butt out. It's a relationship between employees and employers and none of the governments business.
The premise for the poll is based on a falsehood that assumes the relationship between employer and employee is a zero sum game, when it is actually one of mutual gain. If anyone has to be "favoured", it would have to be the employer since it is him who creates the job for the employee to take, but - again - there really is no discrepancy between the two parties. As the poster above mentioned, ideal is government staying out of the labour market.
Most HS-teachers and college professors alike are all flatout Marxists, so I am not really surprised that is how people view the economy,
Marxism is evil. By that i mean from Satan's mind to Marx's pen. And Satan's goal is the destruction of humans.
Neither they should be as neutral as possible enabling both sides to engage in the free market of products, services and labor.
I very narrowly voted that labor laws should favor the employee. It's not always an easy decision, because I've seen both sides as an employee and a manager, in small private companies, and in international Fortune-50 corporations. Much can be said for both of these viewpoints, but ultimately, in the vast majority of all situations, the employer always has the right to fire or 'lay off' whoever he wants, and, the employee always has the right to quit working at any particular job and go find another one, hit the lottery, or whatever.... The employer has the greater amount of power, obviously, so the protection, when and where it is warranted, should go to the employee.
Favoring is not something federal government should do. In my view it should treat every citizen exactly the same. If a situation can't be dealt with from a perspective of equality, the federal government shouldn't be involved in it.
I can’t get my head around how the question was framed. That said, does the government have an interest in protecting the game and its players? Yes. To me, it’s a question of efficiency rather than favoritism.
This in some ways sounds like a misleading question. It's like calling a flat tax regressive (even though rich people really do pay more, in proportion to their income). Laws that allow at will employment by both parties are, in one sense, inherently equal between employer and employee. Now you can argue there are inherent inequalities between the two parties, but that does not arise because of the law. That being said, there might be a few reasonable laws that could be passed to make things easier on employees, but in general, I think laws should be geared to allow the employer freedom. That freedom should only ever be curtailed if we can get a "good value" for the amount of freedom sacrificed versus the expected benefit and importance to workers. There are many worker protections I would take away, and many protections I would add. (For example, allowing employees to be able to sit down in a chair when the function of the job they are doing could allow them to do so)
