5 ms·
There's another way in which unjust pay might have been mutually agreed: it might have been just when it was agreed, but as the pay was eroded by inflation and
by lambertsimnel 5y ago
There's another way in which unjust pay might have been mutually agreed: it might have been just when it was agreed, but as the pay was eroded by inflation and the employee's productivity increased it might have become unjust (especially in cases where new hires are paid much more).
- sneak 5y agoNo, still not unjust. The employee opts in to that job anew each time they show up for work. To work at a job is to actively consent to that job.
- hiptobecubic 5y agoThis is bonkers. Expecting everyone to treat every minute of their employment as an active decision to exchange their work-seconds for dollars that can be cancelled (and therefore optimized) at any time is some libertarian robo-dystopian nonsense. Even ignoring how horrible it would be to try to actually live like that, there is objectively significant overhead to job hunting for candidates, for employers and for society. Switching jobs is expensive on many levels.
- lambertsimnel 5y agoI don't agree. For one thing, there are notice periods. You might not consider them material in this context, but sometimes they can be. For example, a rapid change in working conditions or in the purchasing power of wages.
- sneak 5y agoNotice periods are custom, not requirement. You are free to stop showing up at any time if your employer starts giving you a bad deal. It's hard to make an argument that you owe them notice if they didn't give notice of a significant change in working conditions.
- lambertsimnel 5y agoI believe notice periods are legally binding in my jurisdiction, and I'm not at all sure that everything I consider worse working conditions would absolve me of that obligation.