 |
Comments |
|
 | Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 23:52:26 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: anon
sorry for the repost here of the same thing from the last open thread, but I thought it was too important to go unnoticed (I posted in the other thread 2 days after it opened).
the unholy alliance between the statist left and the religious right we've all been predicting? it's starting...
http://www.youtube.com/user/Garmoco |
|
| Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 4:39:57 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Anthony
What are the implied obligations of an employee to an employer, absent an explicit contractual provision to the contrary?
Would a proper government draw any distinction between an employee and an independent contractor? |
|
| Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 5:15:57 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Roger
I've been an employee and an employer. The implied obligation of an employee to an employer is to contribute to the employer's success. That's why the employee is hired in the first place, and acceptance of a paycheck indicates the employee's agreement. The specific means of contributing to success can be spelled out in a number of ways. It's usually done by a job description, but not always. And there's always an implied provisio from the employer: do what the job description says, but also do whatever I ask of you. As long as a request is not illegal or immoral, I see no problem with that. The employee can always refuse and find other employment.
As an employee, I've been an FTE (full-time employee) and a contractor. As I see it, there's only a distinction these days because of employment laws, primarily concerning benefits. My responsibilities to the company have not been different in either role. I don't think a proper government would draw any distinction - the arrangement should be up to the two people involved. |
|
| Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 6:25:52 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
oger,
This is actually culturally variable. A good friend of mine works for a large corporation that has branches in several countries and is HQed in Amsterdam; she's gone there several times for training and administrative meetings. The European employees she's met all take it for granted that if you get hired to do X, your job is to do X and that is the only thing you can legitimately be asked to do; if the corporation adds Y to your job description they are violating your rights as an employee. Apparently they also have much more expectation that if you get hired to do X you will continue to do X throughout your career there. This particular bit of "cultural diversity" sounds a lot like a caste system to me; I prefer the American approach where the job is individually defined between employer and employee.
When I worked there, I was asked to develop and teach a course on grammar for new copy editors who needed a more advanced understanding of the subject. It wasn't in my job description, but it was one of the most rewarding things I ever did on the job. |
|
| Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 7:12:58 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Anthony
"And there's always an implied provisio from the employer: do what the job description says, but also do whatever I ask of you. As long as a request is not illegal or immoral, I see no problem with that. The employee can always refuse and find other employment."
This becomes interesting when the employer is a corporation, I think. If your boss tells you to do something that clearly isn't in the best interest of the corporation, for instance.
I didn't think of it until just now, but remember the train stuck at the red light in Atlas Shrugged?
I often find myself in precarious positions like this when I can't get enough work as a contractor and as a lesser of evils accept work as an employee. As an independent contractor I find it much easier. But maybe that's more a result of the fact that I usually only can get a job as an independent contractor with smaller employers, where my boss equals the majority shareholder, or at least my boss's boss does. |
|
| Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 7:49:52 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Daniel
URL: http://thenearbypen.blogspot.com
A picture of the new acroplis museum and some commentary on it. (I like the building, though pillars.)
http://thenearbypen.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-acropolis-museum.html
Also in architecture news, Guggenheim and Google are teaming up and sponsoring a global design competition inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright's works. Learn more about it here:
http://thenearbypen.blogspot.com/2009/06/global-architecture-compet ...
Hopefully some Noodlefooders submit some good stuff!
|
|
| Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 8:51:16 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: JT
E-mail: JT30014(at)hotmail.com
Roger: "And there's always an implied provisio from the employer: do what the job description says, but also do whatever I ask of you."
I don't think I agree with this. An employee only agrees to do the specific tasks made clear to him or her in exchange for specific compensation. Of course, the specific tasks and amount of compensation may be changed at, say, a semi-annual or annual performance review. But if someone agrees to take a job to make calls to sell a product for a company, for example, it's not "implied" that he also pick up his boss's dry cleaning if his boss wants him to, or handle his boss's personal schedule, or give his boss golf tips, etc. The agreement is limited to the explicit terms agreed upon at the time of hiring. I'm open to reconsidering, but I believe that's true. |
|
| Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 9:26:24 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Roger
JT: Good point. The "pick up my dry cleaning" scenario hadn't occurred to me, probably because, in all my years in the work force, I've never been put in that position.
I'm currently contracting as an IT professional, with no explicit contract, for a very large company. The requirements for this job, as stated in the job description, are sufficiently broad enough to cover a wide range of duties. In fact, when I was a manager charged with, among other things, writing job descriptions for a new department, one of my rules of thumb was to be as broad in each description as possible while still accurately describing the tasks to be done and the skills needed. That was not easy.
My current boss has never asked me to pick up her dry cleaning, but I don't think I'd mind, at least at first. I am, after all, a contractor, employed at her and the company's discretion. If she were to do that, it would be an awful waste of my talents and the company's money. And, of course, I could always refuse. |
|
| Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 10:16:27 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Anthony
"My current boss has never asked me to pick up her dry cleaning, but I don't think I'd mind, at least at first. I am, after all, a contractor, employed at her and the company's discretion. If she were to do that, it would be an awful waste of my talents and the company's money. And, of course, I could always refuse."
If I concluded, like you, that it was clearly a waste of my talents and the company's money, I'd definitely refuse, and it'd be out of principle. Whether I'd take the matter to her boss immediately or wait and see if she fired me before appealing to her boss, I wouldn't waste the company's money that way.
But then, I'm not very good at holding a steady job :). |
|
| Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 10:19:45 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Anthony
By the way, I agree that I'd have no recourse if I refused, was fired, and lost all (non-judicial) appeals I made up the chain. |
|
| Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 12:25:01 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Richard
So who's going to be watching ABC's "townhall" discussion of Obama's health care plan tonight? I think I might take a shot every time they cite the discredited "~46 million uninsured Americans" statistic. |
|
| Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 12:32:03 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: rrlv_frsh
As far as I know, first-year law students in the U.S. still study a topic known as "oral contracts," which is a subdivision of the general topic of "contacts." Oral contracts generally are fully enforceable agreements under the law, subject to various statutes requiring certain kinds of contracts to be in writing. Oral contracts are extremely convenient and vital to smoothly functioning commerce, but have the disadvantage of sometimes being more susceptible to misinterpretations or misunderstandings by the parties. When one person agrees to do a job for another, the agreement may often be entirely oral. But the parties are still bound by whatever terms were ageed to, which may indeed be as vague as "do whatever I might need, and you'll be paid for your time and materials; if you don't like it, you can quit; and if I don't like it, you can go elsewhere after you've been paid for what you've already done." There is no philosophical reason why employment of any kind should be any different (notwithstanding today's endless barrage of "labor laws" allegedly aimed at protecting allegedly downtrodden workers from allegedly oppressive "capitalist masters").
|
|
| Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 16:33:26 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Jonathan Blaze
E-mail: jon(at)blaze.org
Good paleo-friendly food -- Sunflower kernels (shelled seeds). I was able to find an entire 1 pound bag of 365 brand kernels at Whole Foods for $1.99! Which just seems ridiculously low. Each 1oz serving has 14g fat, 6g protein and 6g carbs (3g fiber, 1g sugar). Excellent snacking foods, highly recommended. |
|
| Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 20:42:29 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
In terms of the "employee vs. independent contractor" distinction, I think the DOL and IRS have something like a "20 Question" test. The questions aren't absolute, but the underlying principle is that the more control that the contract gives the employer over the employed, the more likely the employed is an employee and not an independent contractor.
If I enter into a non-exclusive contract with someone to paint my house, that person is an independent contractor. If, however, I enter into an agreement with someone to be a house painter, that contract specifies hours, is exclusive (i.e. does not permit outside employment), and the contract provides that I may instruct the person which houses to paint, when, and how, then that person is likely an employee. It's more a question of degree than anything else. |
|
| Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 22:32:11 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: John Harris
E-mail: John.harris00(at)gmail.com
Notice that he never really answered a question, he just bullshited, pussyfooted around the questions with crap answers.
Anyone besides me notice that Obama keeps reaching over and touching Charlie Gibson, and Gibson keeps moving away.
John. |
|
| Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 4:54:50 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Rory Hodgson
E-mail: cowboybebop(at)ntlworld.com
Am I right in thinking that, when Philosophers talk about the question of 'What makes personal identity?' (as opposed to how we *identify* an existent), they are asking, "Ok, so, in spite of all the changes in substance, what special quality can we find that is non-transferable from entities which are ourselves?"
In other words: are they treating personal identity like some special, metaphysical quality which, if found, would let us know that we had the same personal identity?
I mean, a quality, like colour, or heat, or length, as opposed to a necessary aspect of that existent itself, that it must have a certain identity, which we identify. |
|
| Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 5:02:08 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Anthony
Yes, clearly the IRS distinction wouldn't apply in a proper government, because there wouldn't be an IRS. But IRS distinction is derived from common law.
One distinction I see between independent contractors and employees, at least under current law, is that independent contractors are free to compete with the business they are working for, while employees are not. Independent contractors still have an obligation not to compete with the business they are working for *on company time*, but employees, again at least under current law, have an obligation not to compete with their employers any time during their employment (at least not within the scope of their employment).
I'm not sure if that should carry to a proper government or not. Perhaps the answer is it really doesn't matter that much since in a proper government it will always be possible to override the implicit contract with an explicit agreement to the contrary. On that note I'd like to point out that that "explicit" vs. "implicit" is not the same as "written" vs. "oral". Still, I think implicit contracts are a useful part of a functioning society. I suppose this could be privatized to a large extent, so that buying a stick of gum didn't require an implicit contract or a mound of paperwork, but simply a signature on a receipt which says "both parties agree to be bound by the Uniform Commercial Code of Galt Enterprises"; or an employment contract could say "employee agrees to the Standard Obligations of an Employee published by Taggart Industries". In that sense I guess it doesn't matter too much... |
|
| Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 5:20:50 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Anthony
Thinking about it a bit more, I think I've concluded this. Implicit obligations are needed to fill in the blanks when the intent of the parties was not made explicit. If I tell someone "you mow my lawn and I'll pay you $15", a court needs to fill in all the blanks in cases of dispute. What if the lawn gets mowed 2 years later? What if the $15 gets paid 2 years later? What if the check bounces? What if the job done is substandard?
I don't think it's fair to hold the parties to the letter of the contract and ignore the intent ("Party B did not state *when* the $15 would be paid, so he is free to pay it 50 years later"). As long as we allow the parties to explicitly modify any implicit parts of the agreement, and we fairly adjudicate the missing parts, I think we have a proper system. With that in mind, I think I have my answer. The implied obligations of an employee to an employer are not a matter of philosophy. They are based on the intent of the two parties. |
|
| Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 6:46:51 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Rory -- I think you're right about the standard approach to personal identity. Personally, I've wondered how Aristotle's view about persistent identity through change -- which solved the biggest metaphysical problem of the ancient world -- might shed light on questions of personal identity. I suspect that someone else has already written on that, but perhaps not. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
