labour conditions are a tricky sort of a topic and I think the lens of liberal economics vs socialist-labour economics hides some important perspectives.<p>Our politicians have a serious roles as leaders. It's intertwined but (IMO) still distinct from their role as legislators<p>Most leaders in history and outside of the "western" liberal democracy tradition place a huge emphasis on cultural leadership. The King/shah/cesar/great leader represents the ideal citizen. They don't just make laws, they make values. In Europe, you can still see this concept in the vestigial monarchies. In The States, it's present in the idea of a first family (sounds similar to "first citizen," the title of Roman Emperors.<p>To those of us that grow up in modern democracies, it seems hockey, cultish and dangerous to think of political leaders as paternal figures. We make a point of being critical of our leaders and react to attempts at deification as paths to tyranny - a way of maintaining power. That's probably a good attitude and keeps us safe from tyrants to an extent, but the role of political leader as cultural leader is so embedded in human political structures everywhere that I think it must have some fundamental role that's hard to do without.<p>Anyway, labour laws do seem to be capable of creating moral/social norms more effectively than say drug laws or tax laws. Our attitudes to discrimination, sexual harassment (or sexualization generally), bullying and other things are distinctly different in a work environment. These cultural elements evolved fast and I'm pretty sure legislation/ors have played a big role.<p>An employer paying under minimum wage, denying a woman maternity leave or only hiring attractive young women is not just breaking the law, he's an arsehole. He's abusing his role as employer.<p>Manufacturing, codifying and maintaining cultural norms in parliaments seems to work exceptionally well in the labour laws space.