Contracting for Employment

The Contract is not the Compact

The focus in any THEE framework is on the purely human elements of the situation i.e. regardless of culture, legalities or technology.

The relationship between employer and employee has two dimensions: 

► social and legal: as captured in the detailed formal contract of employment. Like most legal documents,Closed it is difficult for an ordinary person to comprehend. As well as the main directly relevant clauses, there is a great deal of small print dealing with how hypothetical situations will be handled or ensuring accordance with formalities and requirements of the particular jurisdiction.

► psychological and communal: as captured in the informal compact of employment. This relates to the conventional social understanding that leads to a commitment to the contract, both initially and then as time passes.

The compact is what must remain continuously alive and meaningful while you are in employment. It necessarily evolves as circumstances change. It corresponds to the summation of expectations and obligations that makes employment worthwhile for both parties. It will appear as the Heptad (CG71): see its properties in advance if you wish.

Unequal Parties driven by Self-interest

When there is a breakdown in the informal compact, then the legally binding contract is used to resolve the situation. So we must briefly look at the contract.

In this regard, keeping the focus «human» is never easy, because the employment contract is between:

● an impersonal legal entity (the organization), &
● a human being (the employee).

Still, in a free society:

● No person is forced to work for any particular organization: work is arranged via an agreed contract.

● No organization is forced to employ any particular person: work is arranged via an agreed contract.

Contracts are voluntarily entered into, because both parties believe that, on balance, it will serve their own interests—which is how it should be.  It is not assumed that either party is fully trusting of the other party or satisfied with all aspects of the contract.

To ensure self-interests are served, the contract puts obligations on each side in regard to the other. That is how it should be. Yet we cannot avoid noticing:

● a massive imbalance in power (size, wealth &c);
● an imbalance in the significance of the contract for well-being;
● the common imbalance in obligations due to:Closed 
either legal requirements protecting employees to an excessive degree, or the absence of such requirements, leading to companies having a minimal formal obligation to treat employees humanely.

ClosedWhen Employees have Most Power

Social Roles

Employees potentially have a number of social roles that can generate conflicts in relation to obligations and expectations.

  • an employee (i.e. an accountable functionary of the organization),
  • part of management (i.e. a representative of the organization),
  • member of staff (i.e. a person in a bounded social group)
  • professional (i.e. a member of a tribal group),
  • and there may be other roles as well.

Originally posted: 20-Oct-2011