Question for DU legal eagles and anyone else:

[Occulus]

Can employees be considered to be selling their work to their employers?

[kick-ass-bob]

1. only if you are a contractor. n/t

[annabanana]

2. but we do

sell them our time and labor...don't we?

[kick-ass-bob]

5. I'm assuming the OP is talking about legal issues.

And labor laws are distinctly different from selling services.

[Occulus]

6. Nope- not legal issues

I'm talking about in principle, and in fact. Not legally, because that doesn't seem to be applicable outside of court anymore. :)

[Deep13]

3. How do you mean?

What are the facts that make this issue?

[Occulus]

7. I sell my time.

I get paid for it. So, am I doing business with my employer or for my employer? Or both?

[Deep13]

9. What's the difference?

... between 'with' and 'for.' If I knew what the point of your question was, I might be able to answer. Are you a contractor or a W-2 employee? Are you employed for a specific length of time or at-will? What do you do?

Generally, employee/employer relationships are governed by common law rules of masters and servants. The master owes the servant wages and the servant owes the master obedience. There are exceptions, but not too many.

[Occulus]

10. My point is simple discussion of the issue

I'm a postal worker.

But, the nature of my employment should not matter. The common-law rules, as you put them, are patently false; the employ owes for work performed, but after performing the work, the employees owes nothing: not alliegance, or obedience, or in fact respect if the employer is himself disrespectful.

In fact, the "employer" ought to be for all intents and purposes the servant of the worker, thanking his lucky stars each and every day that they are willing to sell him their work. In other words, the perception of the employer/employee relationship, the former being above the latter, is faulty and is in fact actually the reverse of what it is believed to be.

[Deep13]

12. The nature matters greatly, postal workers are governed by ...

... Federal civil service statutes and not common law rules.

You asked for advice based on the law, not what popular perceptions are or what things ought to be. If you don't like my answer, well, you did ask and you purposefully refused to give any relevant details.

I do not know what legal authority you are relying on, but you can look it up in American Jurispurdence 2nd or Corpus Juris Secondum. I will consider you opinion on this matter when you have a law degree and ten years of litigation experience.

Sure, there is no legal penalty for refusing to be obedient to ones boss, but under the law in most states, he can still fire any employee at any time for any reason or for no reason. If an employee is employed for a specific length of time, he works under contract can be discharged only for a violation of the terms of the contract.

[Occulus]

14. Your last statement is a bit revealing

considering employers violate contracts daily and are subject to little or no consequence.

By your logic, I could claim that the employer ought to lose his business- the actual business itself- for violating the contract.

I believe if you had read the entire thread you would then know that I am not talking about legal issues here, but rather how the true nature of such a relationship as I describe c ould be perhaps enforced or even established under law.

Your response was brittle. Are you having a bad day?

[Deep13]

16. It isn't MY logic, genius, it's the law.

Employers who violate contracts are responsible for expectation damages. All civil damages are calculated to compensate an injured party, not punish the breaching party. (Yes, I know about punys, but they are so rare except for a few statutory exceptions they are not worth mentioning).

1. I responded to what was supposed to be a legitimate legal question. That is what the original post called for, not speculate on the nature of economics in general.
2. I find that after answering it, you jump on me for not giving the answer you want.

[Occulus]

18. Go read post #6.

I was being silly there- but only a little bit. It also happens to be a true statement.

Given that far more citizens are employees than employers, the laws dealing with worker relations ought to be of far more benefit to workers than they are to employers. They are not; our union has a backlog of 10,000+ grievances pending at the national level. And no, the simple majority should not determine what the law says; that's a different issue, though, and not what's being discussed.

"Employers who violate contracts are responsible for expectation damages."

If paid out, those damages would bankrupt the business I work for unless the damage to management from each seperate arbitration decision were each, taken seperately, a slap on the wrist. Clearly, the employment laws you are referring to do not work; when applied to my employer, they're pretty words on paper, but not much more than that. I already knew that; therefore, post #6.

I was asking lawyers specifically because I wanted some sense of how our laws might be made to address the general erosion of workers' rights, and perhaps make irrelevant the anti-union sentiment so prevalent is our society today via the vehicle of laws which might make a person's work product an actual sale of service of some sort. Doing so was apparently a mistake. I will not be asking lawyers about hypotheticals again; this is not the first time I've seen someone in the legal profession (which by your tone I will presume you are; I was, after all, asking for lawyers' perspectives on how poor worker relations might be approached) take offense to the idea that the law- any law- does not say what it ought to say.

Does your knowledge of the law require you to only address specific legal questions? Because that's not what I'm talking about at all; I'm trying to figure out how our laws determining workers' relations with their employers might be made more "fair", if you will, to workers than they are to employers, by virtue of the workers being able to claim they are providing a business service to them. Another poster on the thread reminded me of the so-called "right to work" laws and their harmful consequences; that's something that is to be avoided.

If you feel that premise is somehow intrinsically faulty, great, let's discuss that. But I was obviously mistaken in asking for a legal perspective on the question and I'll not be doing so again.

[1932]

20. What you "owe" each other is set by law.

Either by contract or by federal and state law, or by both.

Although there are many laws that benefit employers, there are also many that, on the whole, favor the employee (however, Republicans have been chipping away at them).

Overall, there is a balance with employees gettting some advantages and employers getting others.

[tocqueville]

4. that's the base of marxism

marxism considers that everybody receiving a WAGE is SELLING one's intellectual or/and manual skills. The employer makes a profit out of the plus value created by the sale.

[Occulus]

8. Note, I did not know that.

It happens to be true.

[annabanana]

11. what else would they be selling?

What else does someone have? Why isn't this also the base of the capitalist system?

[pitohui]

13. no, check with the irs

employers would love to have everyone classified as "work for hire" or an independent contractor or agent but the internal revenue service frowns on this abuse

employees get benefits, social security etc.

"work for hire"/contractors get the shaft

if your employer is trying to switch you to "work for hire," as in you are selling your labor by the hour or job, report it to the irs & you can get the practice stopped on a dime, it will help not just you but ALL the "work for hires" who are being cheated of their future social security benefits & other benefits enjoyed only by employees such as vacation time

[Occulus]

15. and that's the problem, I know

I think that could be dealt with, though, with strong laws addressing wrongful termination.

You're spot-on with your objection. That aspect isn't to be taken lightly.

[TahitiNut]

17. No. It's against US Code (15 USC 17) to treat labor as a commodity.

(IANAL) :shrug:

TITLE 15 - CHAPTER 1 - § 17

§ 17. Antitrust laws not applicable to labor organizations

The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000017----000-.html

[Occulus]

19. Thanks.

It's already taken care of, then. I wasn't aware of that.