![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dragonlady7via http://ift.tt/2GziWjI
brotheralyosha:
“[T]hrough the first half of the nineteenth century owners and mangers of smaller businesses comprised the bulk of the commercial middle class. Enterprises were not usually impersonal; the managers were frequently the owners of the business… As the century progressed and the sale of production increased, however, enterprises became larger and more impersonal and many workers became farther removed from ownership… Salaried employees with little control of their employment situation became a larger proportion of the work force and an important segment o the economy. Thus the many suits brought [by mid-level mangers] to establish interest in their jobs were an attempt by a newly important group in the economy to apply a traditional doctrine to their new situation, but the courts rejected the attempt and instead announced the new principle of employment at will. The reasons for this lie in the class division fundamental to the capitalist system: the distinction between owners and non-owners of capital…
Employment at will is the ultimate guarantee of the capitalist’s authority over the worker. The rule transformed long-term and semi-permanent relations into non-binding terminable at will. If employees could be dismissed on a moment’s notice, obviously they could not claim a voice in the determination of the conditions of work or the use of the product of their labor. Indeed, such a fleeting relationship is hardly a contract at all.”
- Jay Feinman, The Development of the Employment at Will Rule, 20 AM. J. LEGAL HIST. 118, 126-27 (1976).
(Your picture was not posted)
brotheralyosha:
“[T]hrough the first half of the nineteenth century owners and mangers of smaller businesses comprised the bulk of the commercial middle class. Enterprises were not usually impersonal; the managers were frequently the owners of the business… As the century progressed and the sale of production increased, however, enterprises became larger and more impersonal and many workers became farther removed from ownership… Salaried employees with little control of their employment situation became a larger proportion of the work force and an important segment o the economy. Thus the many suits brought [by mid-level mangers] to establish interest in their jobs were an attempt by a newly important group in the economy to apply a traditional doctrine to their new situation, but the courts rejected the attempt and instead announced the new principle of employment at will. The reasons for this lie in the class division fundamental to the capitalist system: the distinction between owners and non-owners of capital…
Employment at will is the ultimate guarantee of the capitalist’s authority over the worker. The rule transformed long-term and semi-permanent relations into non-binding terminable at will. If employees could be dismissed on a moment’s notice, obviously they could not claim a voice in the determination of the conditions of work or the use of the product of their labor. Indeed, such a fleeting relationship is hardly a contract at all.”
- Jay Feinman, The Development of the Employment at Will Rule, 20 AM. J. LEGAL HIST. 118, 126-27 (1976).
(Your picture was not posted)
