Question for those who oppose a minimum wage

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

They are still obligated to follow them.

They are not bound by law to follow the handbook unless there is already a law on the books for what it says (like having to pay you for overtime).


The handbook is nothing without a law.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

They are not bound by law to follow the handbook unless there is already a law on the books for what it says (like having to pay you for overtime).


The handbook is nothing without a law.

It is a contract.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

It is a contract.

No it isn't. It is an information pack on how the company handles things, not a contract.


I just got through with a 2 year lawsuit against a former employeer over stuff revolving around this. They are not bound by the handbook unless it coincides with a law on the books.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

No it isn't. It is an information pack on how the company handles things, not a contract.


I just got through with a 2 year lawsuit against a former employeer over stuff revolving around this. They are not bound by the handbook unless it coincides with a law on the books.

You're right the handbook is not a contract. Promises by the employer can be made a contract though. For example, if the employer offers a 401(k) match at the end of the year, the employer will be bound by that promise and responsible for paying the employee what was promised.

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Yeah, but of what relevance is the ability to contract when you have employment at will, i.e., no contract? The whole idea of employment at will is that neither party is bound to do anything, and either can get out of the relationship at any time for any reason.

Actually, there is a contract. If I just started coming to work and browsing the internet all day, my boss could fire me for breach of contract (verbal) that when I'm here, I'm "on the clock" and supposed to be doing things he instructs me to do. If I wanted to ENSURE for myself that all the hours per week over 40 (or whatever arbitrary number we agree on) is paid at time-and-a-half or double-time, then he and I would draw up said contract, sign it, notarize it, and we'd each keep a copy. If he broke the agreement, I'd take him to court, show the evidence, and the judge would rule in my favour.

It's really not so difficult.

Even the employee handbook could be construed as contract, if, by agreeing to work for the company, you are agreeing to the terms in the employee handbook. That would be up to a judge. Again, though, if there was no LAW concerning overtime, there would be a contractual form for it.

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

So basically, exploiting adults is okay, but not children, amirite?

How is an adult exploited? He has the CHOICE to agree with the terms of employment, and could even manipulate them if it weren't "law". See, the potential employee could say "you know, if I'm chugging Jolt cola to get a project out by a tight deadline, and I'm missing time with my family, I really deserve a $50 bonus at the end of a workweek with overtime". The employer could say "okay, I really need you here, so we'll add that to the contract". No overtime laws would be GOOD for employees and employers.

I find that people that feel a need for minimum wage, unions, and overtime laws are often the kinds of people that aren't very valuable to an employer, so they NEED the governemnt to twist the arm of an employer to pay them more than they're worth.

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

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.

How is that? It only shifts from criminal to civil. The "contract" exists now, in a manner of speaking, but it's a contract with the company and the State, rather than the company and the individual.

As another note, I have a contract with the company I work for. I write software for internal use. I am bound to keep secret that program code (we have the best database merge-purge software ever created, in my humble unbiased opinion) whether I write it or not. If I leaked any of our program code to a competitor, I could have my pants sued off. My point: companies and individuals already engage in contracts that could result in civil litigation if a party breeches it. This brave new world would be no different.

[goldenponderbob]

I'm a bit confused.

Aren't we supposed to have 12 million illegals with made up social security #'s doing work Americans don't want?

How can we regulate a minimum wage when we haven't got a grip on who's out there mowing the lawn?

We don't officially know who he is, but we are demanding control of how much he earns?

I think there are a few pieces missing.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

you guys are right. i stand corrected. an agreement, even "at will" to work for x/hour to do y job is still a contract. i just thought thomez meant by "employment contract" an agreement where the employer's ability to fire is restricted.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

you guys are right. i stand corrected. an agreement, even "at will" to work for x/hour to do y job is still a contract. i just thought thomez meant by "employment contract" an agreement where the employer's ability to fire is restricted.

no, not at all

contracts for everything else are commonplace for the duration of employment - either party can end the employment, and end the contract at any time, but for the duration of employment, the employee and employer both must follow the terms of the contract

this is how "at will" states work (and how all states should work IMO )