so it looks like with at will either party can terminate at any time for any reason.
with a timed contract, such a a one year contract, people could leave, but would have to pay fines or anything else agreed to as a consequence of not fullfilling the deal in full.
why would people want to do at will contracts, or would it just depend on the market?
The vast majority of employment contracts are "at-will". Not many people have a "____-year" employment contract.
Did you work for McDonald's on a one year contract in high school? Would you want such a contract in that situation?
well my thought is different contract types work for different type jobs
a truck diver hired to bring X from A to C can't just stop at B and quit the delivery at will with a company being able to survive with such a hire.
maybe saying timed was not completly what i was thinking of, as i also wanted to include contracts without a speficic lengh, but with clauses that require each party to follow rules before termination of the contract is justified. such as saying a person can only be fired after a arbatration or or only leave after a meeting conditions such as finding a replacement or face a fine or something like that.
im thinking about being able to fire or leave a job unconditionaly vs conditionaly
I honestly don't know what your issue is. You literally asked "why would people want to do at will contracts[?]"
And my response was essentially..."would you want a non at-will contract for your job as a McDonald's cashier?" I'm pretty sure your answer is "no." And If you can answer why your answer is "no", then it would seem you have an answer to your original question.
well we don't really have at will with current government laws. current government laws make it so people can only be fired under certain conditions.
it seems a employer would favor true at will more than a employee. employees would usally like to bargain for conditional release rather than unconditional at will release for many jobs.
cab21:well we don't really have at will with current government laws. current government laws make it so people can only be fired under certain conditions.
Is one of those conditions "I don't really want you working for me any more"? Because if you'll admit that (which you should, because it's true), then I don't know what was the point in your statement just then.
So you're telling me you would want to have to negotiate with your employer to quit your cashier job at the McDonald's? You're cetainly in a minority.
people still win lawsuits for unlawful fireing even when told they are not wanted.
i mean they don't want a company to ship them someone for overseas employment then fire them and refuse to pay for the return flight home or something.
if you owned a shipping company , would you want your truck drivers to ditch jobs at whim without notice?
if you owned a security force, would you like them to ditch the job for any reason they want.
if you were having sergery, would you like the doctor team to just be able to walk out at any time during the operation?
im saying a employee would not to negotiate when a employer could release the employee, and a employer would want to negotiate when a employee could be released. some jobs don't work if people can quit in the middle of the job.
cab21:people still win lawsuits for unlawful fireing even when told they are not wanted.
People get arrested even when they have broken no law, too. What's your point?
No, but wouldn't that mean a "timed" contract or a "performance" contract would be more pleasing to an employer? Did you not just tell me that: "it seems a employer would favor true at will more than a employee."??
Right. Everyone wants to gain the most benefits and give up the least. Everyone wants to sell their goods at the highest price possible and buy goods at the lowest price possible. And people voluntarily acting in their own self-interest, and according to their own values, reach an agreement, and a trade takes place.
I don't see any point you're trying to make.
What is it you don't understand? What is your question? Or are you just here to make statements?
i think my question came from the inalianable of self ownership discussion where it seemed people were saying it was slavery to not let people back out of a contract at any time or something.
i think one article i read said that people under military contracts ought to be able to leave at any time, and just they they would have to give back material owned by the military. this situation is flakey if it happend under a private security force with people being able to abandon a job if they want.
it was one of the articles in the IP thread. one condition seen in ip industries today is noncompete or nondiscloser contracts. companies don't want to teach then have people leave right after and work for competitors.
I still don't see a question anywhere in there, but yes, see:
Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts
is the article saying a truck driver cannot be legally obligated to make a delivery, a doctor cannot be obligated to finish a operation, and so on?
cab21:is the article saying a truck driver cannot be legally obligated to make a delivery, a doctor cannot be obligated to finish a operation, and so on?
Christ you can't even click a link and read an article?
Can't help you if you're not willing to help yourself. We're probably done here.
i read the article
title-transfer theory
seemed to say a truckdriver would pay a deposet or have insurance or something in that would transfer title in case of dissertment, then get the deposet back after successful delivery.