Languish.org

If you are an employer, feel free to answer for your employees. Do they have a written contract with you?

Related question: How do legal proceedings on employment work in your place if you don't have a written contract? Let's say you were promised a certain amount of pay or vacation and the employer later does not actually give it to you.

Every job I've had has had a written contract. Even part-time in the local McColls when I was 16. I think it's a legal requirement here :mellow:

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2013, 03:40:25 PM
I think it's a legal requirement here :mellow:

Not according to this: https://www.gov.uk/employment-contracts-and-conditions/overview

Quote from: Zanza on January 20, 2013, 03:41:48 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2013, 03:40:25 PM
I think it's a legal requirement here :mellow:

Not according to this: https://www.gov.uk/employment-contracts-and-conditions/overview

That just means an employment contract can be binding even when it's verbal.

The contract doesn't have to be written when it's agreed. But the employer has to provide a written contract (or document with the main terms of the contract) within eight weeks of employment commencing.

The situation in Poland is the same as in the UK.

I think it is actually the same in Germany. If the employer doesn't give you at least written rules within four weeks, he has the burden of proof about the content of the agreement.

Yes, I have a contract. No, that does not mean my employer can't fire me at any time for any reason.

I have a contract.  Beyond that I am employed by a Public University.  What that means is that while there are no unions here, gross incompetence or inability to perform my job really don't merit firing.

I'm an American that isn't a pro athlete, so no.

Yes, I think it's my first job with one too.

I don't even have a job. :(

Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2013, 07:27:46 PM
I don't even have a job. :(

Me neither.

Only contracts I'm obligated to are the mortgage and car payment.

The firings will continue until morale improves.

Only person I personally know with a contract is a bud who is a producer at ABC.

Yeah sign contracts/deal memo for every job

Yes, I have a 12 or 13 page contract.

Unemployed, so no, but don't think I've ever had a contract.

I do. Had one at both of accounting related jobs. Last one was a long fucker that i had to sign and submit before i could start.

Nah, I never had an employment contract. Maybe once when I did some consulting work, but for other jobs no contracts have ever been necessary.

I might just have the most binding contract around here.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Everyone of my employees has a written contract.

L.

I work full time and legally in the civilized world. Of course I do.

Such is the Japanese way though its not particularly binding. Mine is stuck to a bit more than for Japanese employees though.

Quote from: Zanza on January 20, 2013, 03:32:28 PM

Related question: How do legal proceedings on employment work in your place if you don't have a written contract? Let's say you were promised a certain amount of pay or vacation and the employer later does not actually give it to you.

The same way any disagrement over provisions of an unwritten contract would be dealt with in a legal setting--if you can prove that those provisions were agreed on, or the other party admits to them, then they're still usually enforcable.

Quote from: dps on January 21, 2013, 04:39:15 AM

Quote from: Zanza on January 20, 2013, 03:32:28 PM

Related question: How do legal proceedings on employment work in your place if you don't have a written contract? Let's say you were promised a certain amount of pay or vacation and the employer later does not actually give it to you.

The same way any disagrement over provisions of an unwritten contract would be dealt with in a legal setting--if you can prove that those provisions were agreed on, or the other party admits to them, then they're still usually enforcable.

Which is kind of the point of having a written contract...

Incidentally, love the litigation involving disagreement over provisions of an unwritten contract, where one party admits to claims of the other party, concerning the contract's terms - happens all the fucking time.

Written contract most of the time. The times when I hadn't one was when I was substituting somebody for a short period of time.

Always had a contract; I even had two for four weeks of work once   :D

Oh and in the UK we get an extra little section waiving the EU working hours directive, so we can work more than 48 hours a week. Yippee!!!  :bowler:

Quote from: Brazen on January 21, 2013, 05:20:22 AM
Oh and in the UK we get an extra little section waiving the EU working hours directive, so we can work more than 48 hours a week. Yippee!!!  :bowler:

As RH said in the other thread, subversive ideas like this lead to European totalitarianism. :yes:

Quote from: Martinus on January 21, 2013, 05:23:17 AM

Quote from: Brazen on January 21, 2013, 05:20:22 AM
Oh and in the UK we get an extra little section waiving the EU working hours directive, so we can work more than 48 hours a week. Yippee!!!  :bowler:

As RH said in the other thread, subversive ideas like this lead to European totalitarianism. :yes:

The Tories are obsessed with the working hours directive. I think it's their only idea for helping the economy grow. As far as I can see business is generally indifferent over it :lol:

I think the problem Brits have with the EU (to which I have already alluded in the thread about the guy sentenced to 5 years in jail for posting shit on Facebook) is that you approach the implementation of EU directives with a bureaucratic zeal unparalleled by anyone in Europe, with a possible exception of Germans.

In Poland, the working hours directive is implemented, but it is largely ignored, especially in more creative/flexible lines of business. It is used mainly to curb grosser excesses and protect employees in businesses such as retail discount chains where employees are often exploited.

Actually that's a common moan. There's a view that we follow all the rules while lots of other Euronations just ignore and flout them. I don't think it's often true though.

And even when it is true (the eggs story springs to mind), it is part of British anti-Europe feelings, but it's only a part of a fulsome whole of Euroscepticism :P

Edit: Incidentally we can opt out of our working time rights. How do, say, lawyers in other countries deal with it? Or does it not apply to those sort of professions? And as I say my impression is that businesses really, really don't care about it - but it's a Tory fixed idea that the only way to growth is for the most liberal employment laws in Europe to get more liberal :bleeding:

The working hour directives are enforced in Austria only for normal employees, not for management level, self-employed and equivalents etc.

Quote from: Martinus on January 21, 2013, 05:06:58 AM

Quote from: dps on January 21, 2013, 04:39:15 AM

Quote from: Zanza on January 20, 2013, 03:32:28 PM

Related question: How do legal proceedings on employment work in your place if you don't have a written contract? Let's say you were promised a certain amount of pay or vacation and the employer later does not actually give it to you.

The same way any disagrement over provisions of an unwritten contract would be dealt with in a legal setting--if you can prove that those provisions were agreed on, or the other party admits to them, then they're still usually enforcable.

Which is kind of the point of having a written contract...

Incidentally, love the litigation involving disagreement over provisions of an unwritten contract, where one party admits to claims of the other party, concerning the contract's terms - happens all the fucking time.

Yeah, though as best as I can tell, in most cases that actually get to trial, the dispute isn't about whether or not certain provisions exist, it's about something else.  For example, if you were a building contractor and you're suing someone because they didn't pay you for work done on their home, they're not likely to claim that they hadn't agreed to pay you a certain amount, but instead claim that the work wasn't done in a proper or timely manner (which might still happen even with a written contract).

Quote from: Syt on January 21, 2013, 06:28:30 AM
The working hour directives are enforced in Austria only for normal employees, not for management level, self-employed and equivalents etc.

Same here. In fact, most lawyers in Poland are not employed subject to employment contracts, but B2B consultancy agreements (as this allows us to pay a 19% flat income tax rate, among other things).

Do I have a written contract?  It's complicated.

There is no single written contract.  When I was hired I was given a letter which stated my salary.  I had to sign and return it, so I guess it's partially a contract.

However I am also subject to various Treasury Board directives, which state other benefits I am entitled to.  So they can be removed without my say-so, but it is not easy for government to do.  Many of them are also tied to benefits that unionized government employees have (and they of course do have collectively bargained contracts).

Quote from: Zanza on January 20, 2013, 03:32:28 PM
If you are an employer, feel free to answer for your employees. Do they have a written contract with you?

Yes our employees have contracts in the form of letter agreements which set out the material terms of their employment.

QuoteRelated question: How do legal proceedings on employment work in your place if you don't have a written contract? Let's say you were promised a certain amount of pay or vacation and the employer later does not actually give it to you.

If there is no written contract the law implies certain terms.  Those implied terms are most favourable to the employee so it is hte employers interest to have written contracts.

In addition no contract (either written or unwritten) may provide less benefits then the minimum standards in our employment standards legislation - ie an employer cannot use their unequal bargaining position to demand that employers opt out of legislated protections.  Those minimum standards include such things as vacation pay (which was a topic some time ago) and minimum severance pay.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2013, 06:03:02 AMEdit: Incidentally we can opt out of our working time rights. How do, say, lawyers in other countries deal with it? Or does it not apply to those sort of professions? And as I say my impression is that businesses really, really don't care about it - but it's a Tory fixed idea that the only way to growth is for the most liberal employment laws in Europe to get more liberal :bleeding:

As far as I can tell, the working time directive is taken seriously mainly in say blue-collar jobs or in retail in big companies. In smaller companies, there is no one who could enforce it, and for academic jobs in most bigger companies, it is expected that you work more than your contract says and that you work more than 48 hours if necessary too.

Quote from: Barrister on January 21, 2013, 10:24:35 AM
Do I have a written contract?  It's complicated.

There is no single written contract.  When I was hired I was given a letter which stated my salary.  I had to sign and return it, so I guess it's partially a contract.

However I am also subject to various Treasury Board directives, which state other benefits I am entitled to.  So they can be removed without my say-so, but it is not easy for government to do.  Many of them are also tied to benefits that unionized government employees have (and they of course do have collectively bargained contracts).

I think that's quite common. My contract has a lot of clauses like "The company pension plan applies" or "The termination period is defined in the union agreement". There is actually very few parts of my contract that are negotiable, mainly salary and hours worked.

Out of interest does work to rule industrial action exist in the US?

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2013, 01:01:41 PM
Out of interest does work to rule industrial action exist in the US?

Yes.  Supposedly American Airlines workers are following such a strategy.

(I know this because my tickets to Brazil are on American <_<)

Quote from: Zanza on January 21, 2013, 12:59:09 PM
I think that's quite common. My contract has a lot of clauses like "The company pension plan applies" or "The termination period is defined in the union agreement". There is actually very few parts of my contract that are negotiable, mainly salary and hours worked.

If you are in a union I am surprised that you even have a separate contract of employment.  Here all terms and conditions of employment of a unionized employee are governed by the collective agreement negotiated between union and employer.  Separate contracts between the employee and employer are not possible for unionized employees.

My job is unionized, but I am not in a union. We are a fairly liberal country as far as unions go. So while unions are very well protected by the law, an individual can never be forced to be a member.

However, the employers negotiate a general deal with the unions that applies to all workers in a certain industry. So my salary is based on a set of tables that applies for several million employees in the "metal" industry (that covers everything from steel mills to machine building to automotive) in Germany. However, the union agreement only sets a certain minimum standard. The workers council of your own company and finally yourself can negotiate further provisions with the employer. The workers council often negotiates things like a Christmas or profit bonus or rules of conduct and you yourself can negotiate your personal bonus or more salary than stipulated in the union contract.

I think the only time I didn't have a proper contract was when I was sworn in as public administrations clerk trainee.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2013, 01:01:41 PM
Out of interest does work to rule industrial action exist in the US?

What does that mean?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2013, 01:58:47 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2013, 01:01:41 PM
Out of interest does work to rule industrial action exist in the US?

What does that mean?

Work to rule means following rules and policy to the letter, doing exactly what is required of you and no more.

Quote from: Syt on January 21, 2013, 01:51:28 PM
I think the only time I didn't have a proper contract was when I was sworn in as public administrations clerk trainee.

Right, civil servants are special. But then their "contract" is defined by public law, so it's not like the rules aren't know. That also means it can be changed unilaterally by the legislative. But I think even civil servants get some kind of document regarding their appointment that they have to accept, no?

Quote from: Zanza on January 21, 2013, 02:06:00 PM

Quote from: Syt on January 21, 2013, 01:51:28 PM
I think the only time I didn't have a proper contract was when I was sworn in as public administrations clerk trainee.

Right, civil servants are special. But then their "contract" is defined by public law, so it's not like the rules aren't know. That also means it can be changed unilaterally by the legislative. But I think even civil servants get some kind of document regarding their appointment that they have to accept, no?

I know I did.

Quote from: Barrister on January 21, 2013, 02:04:29 PMWork to rule means following rules and policy to the letter, doing exactly what is required of you and no more.

And it slows things down something crazy.

I once had to return to Canada when the border guards were working to rule. They took something like 10-20% of people crossing, searched their luggage thoroughly and asked every single question they ought to. It was slow as all hell.

Quote from: Zanza on January 21, 2013, 02:06:00 PM

Quote from: Syt on January 21, 2013, 01:51:28 PM
I think the only time I didn't have a proper contract was when I was sworn in as public administrations clerk trainee.

Right, civil servants are special. But then their "contract" is defined by public law, so it's not like the rules aren't know. That also means it can be changed unilaterally by the legislative. But I think even civil servants get some kind of document regarding their appointment that they have to accept, no?

Bit hazy, it was 17 years ago. I was sworn in, IIRC, received my document that confirmed it. I think I signed something as part of that, but I can't say for sure.

Quote from: Zanza on January 21, 2013, 01:15:27 PM
My job is unionized, but I am not in a union. We are a fairly liberal country as far as unions go. So while unions are very well protected by the law, an individual can never be forced to be a member.

However, the employers negotiate a general deal with the unions that applies to all workers in a certain industry. So my salary is based on a set of tables that applies for several million employees in the "metal" industry (that covers everything from steel mills to machine building to automotive) in Germany. However, the union agreement only sets a certain minimum standard. The workers council of your own company and finally yourself can negotiate further provisions with the employer. The workers council often negotiates things like a Christmas or profit bonus or rules of conduct and you yourself can negotiate your personal bonus or more salary than stipulated in the union contract.

Sounds like a rather civilized way of doing things.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2013, 02:18:59 PMSounds like a rather civilized way of doing things.

Yeah. It makes sense to me that the interests of workers are represented on a level of clout beyond the individual worker, to level the playing field somewhat. If this can be done in a way doesn't take away individual freedom to negotiate a better deal, and in a way that provides stability for employers as well that's pretty solid.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2013, 01:58:47 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2013, 01:01:41 PM
Out of interest does work to rule industrial action exist in the US?

What does that mean?

It means they do their best to do as little as possible and be as disruptive as possible while still technically complying with their contract.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2013, 01:58:47 PM

What does that mean?

It's a sort of industrial action when workers only do what is required according to their contracts, no more. They'll take their full breaks, they won't do overtime, they'll leave exactly when their shift ends etc. Also they normally follow exact procedures as laid down by management rather than the speedier workarounds that most people actually do. So they'll normally follow bureaucratic and health and safety rules rather punctiliously.

But they're fulfilling the terms of their contract. It was recently done by teachers in this country and I think it's common elsewhere in Europe.

It used to be popular with civil servants in Germany who by law are not permitted to go on strike. When they wanted to make a point they did so by working strictly according to the words of their obligations which could slow things down rather considerably.

Quote from: Syt on January 21, 2013, 03:21:03 PM
It used to be popular with civil servants in Germany who by law are not permitted to go on strike. When they wanted to make a point they did so by working strictly according to the words of their obligations which could slow things down rather considerably.

In Germany I could imagine that would bring the nation to its knees :lol:

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2013, 02:59:00 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2013, 01:58:47 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2013, 01:01:41 PM
Out of interest does work to rule industrial action exist in the US?

What does that mean?

It means they do their best to do as little as possible and be as disruptive as possible while still technically complying with their contract.

Employers in America would like it if their unionized workers would do that--the employers would get much much more work out of them.

Quote from: Jacob on January 21, 2013, 02:28:10 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2013, 02:18:59 PMSounds like a rather civilized way of doing things.

Yeah. It makes sense to me that the interests of workers are represented on a level of clout beyond the individual worker, to level the playing field somewhat. If this can be done in a way doesn't take away individual freedom to negotiate a better deal, and in a way that provides stability for employers as well that's pretty solid.

Sounds kind of like it would be easy to exploit by free riders; if one can have all the benefits of the union with none of the responsibilities, like paying dues, why join?  Am I mistaken?

Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2013, 08:44:08 PMSounds kind of like it would be easy to exploit by free riders; if one can have all the benefits of the union with none of the responsibilities, like paying dues, why join?  Am I mistaken?

So? If the union set up ensures that workers, unionized or not, have sufficient bargaining power when it comes to employers, who cares if there are some free riders? IMO, it only really matters if free riders undermine the overall worker bargaining position.

Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2013, 08:44:08 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 21, 2013, 02:28:10 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2013, 02:18:59 PMSounds like a rather civilized way of doing things.

Yeah. It makes sense to me that the interests of workers are represented on a level of clout beyond the individual worker, to level the playing field somewhat. If this can be done in a way doesn't take away individual freedom to negotiate a better deal, and in a way that provides stability for employers as well that's pretty solid.

Sounds kind of like it would be easy to exploit by free riders; if one can have all the benefits of the union with none of the responsibilities, like paying dues, why join?  Am I mistaken?

Yeah, I would say you are.  In Canada at least compulsory union membership in workplaces that are unionized has a number of unintended consequences:

1) the union dues are used for things other than dealing with the employment relationship.  Often times those dues support political parties and advertising the individual union member may not support.

2) Non compulsory membership becomes irrelvant if everyone is subject to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.  Indeed such a rule makes unions much more powerful then they would otherwise be if they negotiated collective agreements in isolation employer by employer.  This sort of sectoral bargaining has huge advantages for unions and their members.