I subscribe to the view that employment contracts contain the same flaw as sale into slavery and coverture marriage contracts have. They take away people's agency and give them to another person
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
That is, those contracts all assume that the worker, slave, or wife, is incapable of independent action (except when it comes to criminal matters of course) and so any product of their actions 'rightfully' belong to the 'guardian', either the slaver, husband, or employer.
(This is not to imply that those separate institutions are alike in indignity, slavery was and is a cruel institution, and treating women as their husbands or fathers possessions is also inhuman. But the family resemblance between them arises from a genetic similarity)
As a result, when a worker hires out their labour, they are assumed to be incapable of 'owning' the product they create. Then, the person that gets the profit becomes the person doing the hiring. In the current system, that's the employer, and they get to retain any profits
The consequence is, the 'ownership' and control of a firm really should belong in the hands of the people working in it, not the people that lend it money, or on which lord's land it occurs. This is largely an idea developed by a guy called David Ellerman, and I'm still getting my head around it
I think what I'd like to see in its place is a system that involves the economic firm and the legal body being more coincident, with internally democratic, 'bottom up' control structures, rather than the essentially military dictatorships with absentee landlords of most modern large firms
And then, I'd like to see the profits of each firm return to the workers of that firm, but to avoid some of the issues that occur with coops, have something like the internal capital accounts that Mondragon style firms have
Comments