this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
147 points (96.2% liked)

Asklemmy

43971 readers
787 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] jlou@mastodon.social 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The employer-employee contract

It violates the theory of inalienable rights that implied the abolition of constitutional autocracy, coverture marriage, and voluntary self-sale contracts.

Inalienable means something that can't be transferred even with consent. In case of labor, the workers are jointly de facto responsible for production, so by the usual norm that legal and de facto responsibility should match, they should get the legal responsibility i.e. the fruits of their labor

@asklemmy

[โ€“] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think that it depends on the nature of the contract. Sure, most of them are terrible.

On the other hand, NDAs are a form of employment contract that are often a necessity. Non-compete contracts can serve a legitimate purpose, in preventing unfair competition or using company secrets for person gain. They're usually written in an overly broad manner though, or prevent legitimate employee activities.

[โ€“] jlou@mastodon.social 1 points 4 months ago

I would argue that all employment contracts are terrible due to their violation of the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match. De facto responsibility is de facto non-transferable, so there is no way for legal and de facto responsibility to match in an employment contract. Instead, workers should always be individually or jointly self-employed as in a worker coop

@asklemmy

[โ€“] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Make employment contract toward all company members, not "the company". Workers are working for each other, not owned by share holders. They are the company.

[โ€“] jlou@mastodon.social 2 points 4 months ago

This would be joint self-employment as in a worker coop

@asklemmy