Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo I don't see what this has to do with the subject. Someone said the reason child labor laws should stay is that children aren't able to enter into contracts. I'm simply saying that a lot of labor arrangements involve no contracts, so that argument doesn't carry ...
11-09-2006, 05:45 PM
| #21 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard  Communist Moscow 
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo all labor arrangments should be contractual agreements 
| ||||
     |
|
11-09-2006, 05:47 PM
| #22 | ||||
| Anti-War, Anti-State, Pro-Free Market  Capitalist
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo
People can get other jobs. Can you please point me to just one city in the whole of America that only has one single business in it? If you can find that one city, then I'll agree that *maybe* the government should set up some laws for that one situation. But in all other situations, competition breeds good and great things. | ||||
| |
|
11-09-2006, 05:53 PM
| #23 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative  Realist
| Originally Posted by thomez Can you imagine the clusterfuck of litigation this would cause? This is the whole reason we have employment-at-will in the first place. Everyone someone is fired, they'd sue without it.
| ||||
| |
|
11-09-2006, 05:54 PM
| #24 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by lew The Gilded Age.
| ||||
| |
|
11-09-2006, 05:56 PM
| #25 | ||||
| Anti-War, Anti-State, Pro-Free Market Capitalist
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo
oh | ||||
| |
|
11-09-2006, 05:58 PM
| #26 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo what are you talking about?
 | ||||
| |
|
11-09-2006, 06:03 PM
| #27 | ||||
| America Fuck Yea Election Moderator  Republican In Name Only
| talk about thread backfire  | ||||
| |
|
11-09-2006, 06:22 PM
| #28 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by thomez You said every job should be governed by a contractual agreement. If every single job came with a contract, you'd have a huge increase in litigation because every time someone got fired, they'd sue because of some interpretation of the contract. Employment at will fixes all this because it simply presumes you can fire someone at any time for any reason. This is one main reason why a lot of states are "employment at will states"...they presume no contract because contracts = increase in people arguing about why they were fired in court.
What don't you understand about that? | ||||
| |
|
11-09-2006, 06:26 PM
| #29 | ||||
| Liberty, now and forever  Libertarian Party DFW
| Employment at will still has certain clauses that are guaranteed though. For example: even without a contract, if I work for 8 hours and agreed to be paid $10 per hour, I will receive $80 for that day of work (less taxes and/or company benefits payments). If I do not, I can file suit with the company even though I never signed a contract. Even in "employment at will" states there IS a contract of sorts you sign when you work for most companies. When I was hired by the bookstore I worked at, I signed a 'contract' agreeing to abide by company policies, same with my current job. That doesn't mean I can't leave whenever I want or that they can't fire me whenever they want. | ||||
| |
|
11-09-2006, 06:30 PM
| #30 | ||||
| Junkie  Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo Still have employee handbooks/rules when you are hired in at will states. My employer states they will pay me time and a half even when the state doesnt require it. If they fail to follow that, I can sue even though I am in and at-will state and not a contract worker.
| ||||
| |
|
11-09-2006, 06:32 PM
| #31 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by Publius That's not really a contract you signed. It's more an acknowledgment you understand the rules...a meaningless internal formality that that bookstore has...
It's not a contract because it didn't say if you follow those rules, you're promised to keep your job. Or if you break those rules, the store doesn't get to do anything they didn't get to do even if you follow the rules because of employment at will. In other words, you simply promised to do something and got no promise in return. Unless both parties give up something (consideration), it's not a contract. | ||||
| |
|
11-09-2006, 06:32 PM
| #32 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 Employee handbooks are usually not construed as contracts in court.
| ||||
| |
|
11-09-2006, 06:36 PM
| #33 | ||||
| Junkie Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo They are still obligated to follow them.
| ||||
| |
|
11-09-2006, 06:38 PM
| #34 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 True, but if they're not considered contracts, what does that have to do with this discussion?
| ||||
| |
|
11-09-2006, 06:42 PM
| #35 | ||||
| Junkie Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo well it refutes your post The whole idea of employment at will is that neither party is bound to do anything, .
Plus I have no idea why you assume that every job must have an official contract or there are no rules. | ||||
| |
|
11-09-2006, 06:52 PM
| #36 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 Well, I should say that even in employment at will, you're not bound to do anything EXCEPT pay the person the amount you agreed to pay them for only the amount of work they've already done. If you want to call this a little mini contract that's renewed every hour of every work day, fine.
But as far as how, when and under what circumstances a person can be fired, employment at will really does mean there are no rules regarding those things unless you explicitly arrange a contract to the contrary. You can fire someone who's doing an awesome job because you don't like their shoes, and that's perfectly okay. There are no rules, except rules about sexual harassment, race discrimination, etc. | ||||
| |
|
11-09-2006, 07:46 PM
| #37 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo you are not understanding things
contracts can be (and are) a major part of employment in "at will" states - hours, ot, benefits, etc etc are still contracted - this has nothing to do with hiring or firing at will whatsoever - and everything in the contract is still legally binding for the duration of employment these issues do not clog up court systems because they are very clear and simple, and unwinnable if wrong = Joe worked 24 hours before we fired him, so we must pay him for that work at the contracted rate or he'll definitely win his case | ||||
| |
|
11-09-2006, 08:14 PM
| #38 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by thomez you didn't clarify what you meant when you said all labor should be governed by contracts. usually when people speak of employment contracts, it includes the terms of hiring and firing, which is as opposed to employment at will which has no such terms. usually "you do X, and I'll pay you Y per hour" is not thought of as an employment contract, although it may technically be one...actually, I just read a really long case where the judge was discussing whether such agreements can be thought of as employment contracts renewed daily. it's not clear...and in fact, if you were to work "at will," and then not be paid, you'd certainly get your money in court, but it won't necessarily be because of a breached contract...it could be a simple matter of unjust enrichment without a contract.
Last edited by SpicyMcVoodoo; 11-09-2006 at 08:22 PM.. | ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 09:12 AM
| #39 | ||||
| Junkie libertarian
| uh i am an "at will" employee, but i have a contract with the company i work for  | ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 09:21 AM
| #40 | ||||
| Perpetual Noob Independent
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo unjust enrichemnt is this sense is likened to the enforcement of implied contracts or quasi-contracts. It seems all of you are in agreement
 | ||||
| |
