Talk:Employment/Archives/2013

Need some balance

This article appears to written from a far too capitalistic paradigm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.25.34 (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll say, the lede reads like it was written by a Chamber of Commerce. It presents a totally In-Universe capitalist perspective as if nothing else existed. See also the contracts thread below. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree I just read the article and found the intro "Employment is a contract between two parties, one being the employer and the other being the employee. Employment opportunity comes directly from investment (including foreign direct investment and investment bank) to gain excessive profit in a Business plan in the capitalist economy." to be very biased and not NPV. There are or have been systems other than capitalism that have created jobs. In addition to which no investment or business plan is necessary for a job to be created. For example a porter does not need an investment to create their own job. Nor do they need a business plan. They simply need to wait around at a place where people are likely to need something to be carried. I don't have the knowledge to rewrite the article well, but I think it is in dire need of a more NPV rewrite. Jtan163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Contracts

In the United States, the standard employment relationship is not a contract and is considered to be at-will meaning that the employer and employee are both free to terminate the employment at any time and for any cause, or for no cause at all.

What's the situation in other countries? Does one get sued or jailed for quitting a job as a stock boy in Mexico City, London, or Bangladesh? If the situation is different elsewhere, it should be explained. If not, the "in the United States" statement should be removed. I'm pretty sure that throughout the free world, the typical laborer can leave employment at will. There are exceptions, of course, but that's why the word "standard" is there. Kafziel ^Talk 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it really a contract, classical contract theory requires freedom to contract, and equal power position of contracting parties. Doe a person without sufficent money have a real choice about the terms of the contract they enter into????JUBALCAIN 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The theory is that the worker possesses something of value and that it could be "sold" somewhere else if need-be. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the common law or commercial code situation, in the United States at least, so-called "full time" or "direct" employment is the anti-thesis of a contract. The employee is absolutely not a contractor and this is the subject matter of the well known 20 questions. The current Lede text is yet another example of a provincial American assumption of the universality of capitalist relations and is diametrically the opposite of the situation in the USA and this should be made clear as in fact it's more or less universally the case. Lycurgus (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Noting that there were originally and famously twenty questions, but they seem to have been boiled down to 3. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

See also my comments on Lede Rewrite at Wage labour. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Depends what you call the free world. In Australia, New Zealand and the EU most employment is not "at will". There are statutory protections for employees and employers, extensive proections against arbitary dismissal by employers, although these protections have been weakened over teh past 20 years or so.

In what I think of as the "free world" the US's "at will" agreements are the exception not the rule.

If you include countires such as Malaysia, Taiwan, India which are technically democracies or republis (but not all that free in reality) then you get "At will" contracts being more the norm. 14.2.18.245 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional reference(s)

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=11687

" . . . By the mid-1990s, Los Angeles had become the nation’s capital of low-wage labor and remains so to this day: Twenty-eight percent of full-time workers in L.A. County make less than $25,000 a year. In Chicago, only 19 percent of workers earn so little. . . "

I think this has some interesting material. Now, this article does seem to have a viewpoint, but I don't think we should exclude it for that reason. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)