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