Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the basic essential elements of contract law is consideration.
Hence your entire premise is incorrect.
The consideration on the part of the employer is agreed-upon wages. The consideration on the part of the employee is services agreed to be performed. Hence a meeting of the minds has occured and the contract is valid.
The consideration on the part of the employer is agreed-upon wages. The consideration on the part of the employee is services agreed to be performed. Hence a meeting of the minds has occured and the contract is valid.
Where are you confused?
Consideration is quite a bit more complicated than that, and common sense tells you why.
As an extreme example, if I am a starving man and you have food to trade, you could exploit the situation and ask me to work 100 hours for one cheeseburger. Would one cheeseburger be considered valid consideration for 100 hours of work? You might argue yes, I think most people would not agree with you (including me).
At the heart of the argument is the concept of coercion. Contracts entered into under threat of duress are not valid, moral, or fair. I would argue that they are not legal, either.
Maybe I'm preaching to the choir here.....I'm assuming a majority of posters on CD are college educated?
If that assumption is true, then we all know that the global workplace is competitive, and in order to create value and 'deserve' higher pay, you have to provide something to your employer that the next guy can't. The higher the skills, the higher the pay.
Flipping burgers, stocking shelves, etc is low skill, low value, and thus low pay. A monkey could be trained to do that and for less money. While these functions are 'essential', they don't provide value. Too many people can do it the exact same way.
My point being, if you have kids, regardless of age, you should be talking to them about continuing their education, striving to do more than the minimum requirements, about developing skills that will be valued when they enter the workforce.
Ok, soap box is collapsing.
You're just a fountain of wisdom. I'd never heard any of that stuff before.
Consideration is quite a bit more complicated than that, and common sense tells you why.
As an extreme example, if I am a starving man and you have food to trade, you could exploit the situation and ask me to work 100 hours for one cheeseburger. Would one cheeseburger be considered valid consideration for 100 hours of work? You might argue yes, I think most people would not agree with you (including me).
At the heart of the argument is the concept of coercion. Contracts entered into under threat of duress are not valid, moral, or fair. I would argue that they are not legal, either.
"Contracts entered into under threat of duress are not valid, moral, or fair" is precisely what the minimum wage law is about!!!
Interestingly, if you pass a law to say the employer must pay you 100 cheeseburger for the 100 hours, the employer would simply not hire you and let you starve to death.
Now that may sound absurd to some but in reality, employers are moving jobs elsewhere leaving you jobless.
Consideration is quite a bit more complicated than that, and common sense tells you why.
As an extreme example, if I am a starving man and you have food to trade, you could exploit the situation and ask me to work 100 hours for one cheeseburger. Would one cheeseburger be considered valid consideration for 100 hours of work? You might argue yes, I think most people would not agree with you (including me).
At the heart of the argument is the concept of coercion. Contracts entered into under threat of duress are not valid, moral, or fair. I would argue that they are not legal, either.
No, it's not more complicated than that.
If you don't like my terms for buying a cheeseburger in exchange for 100 hours of labor, then go buy one from someone else. I see hungry people lined up behind you who are willing to agree to my terms. If you want compassion, go see your mama as I have a business to run.
In a free market, supply and demand determine the value of my cheeseburger. If no one buys, I must lower the price to that at or near the price of my competitors. What? You only want to work 20 minutes for a cheeseburger? Sorry, that's not the going rate around here. You're going to have to adjust your expectations.
As long as there are others selling cheeseburgers, you cannot make any claim of coersion (not that it would be valid anyhow). If all available cheeseburgers are at or near the same exchange rate, and you feel that is unacceptable, then you're going to have to find another way to eat, particularly if others are willing to pay that 100 hour exchange rate.
Businesses are not in the business of social obligation to feed the hungry or accomodate the lazy and unmotivated. They are in business to generate profit for the stakeholders. Morals have nothing to do with it. If you want charity, go find a church. And fair is defined as a place where people get ribbons for having the prettiest pig. Neither morals nor fairness come into play when determining at the validity of a contract after signing time where both parties freely agreed, so yes, it is legal.
Last edited by Workin_Hard; 09-19-2014 at 11:43 AM..
Consideration is quite a bit more complicated than that, and common sense tells you why.
As an extreme example, if I am a starving man and you have food to trade, you could exploit the situation and ask me to work 100 hours for one cheeseburger. Would one cheeseburger be considered valid consideration for 100 hours of work? You might argue yes, I think most people would not agree with you (including me).
At the heart of the argument is the concept of coercion. Contracts entered into under threat of duress are not valid, moral, or fair. I would argue that they are not legal, either.
I think you also misunderstand the word "duress".
threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment.
Law
constraint illegally exercised to force someone to perform an act.
archaic
forcible restraint or imprisonment.
I didn't create the situation of you being starved. You did that to yourself. You can't call that "under duress."
Now establishing a minimum wage law is to put employers under duress "legally."
"Contracts entered into under threat of duress are not valid, moral, or fair" is precisely what the minimum wage law is about!!!
I believe you are incorrect. I would say that the minimum wage laws are the pretense by which government creates an illusion of fairness, or cloak of legitimacy to hide behind to make it appear that these contracts do not contain an element of coercion. Regardless, these contracts are still not legal as they are entered into under threat of duress and coercion.
Quote:
Interestingly, if you pass a law to say the employer must pay you 100 cheeseburger for the 100 hours, the employer would simply not hire you and let you starve to death.
So? Even if this is true it certainly does not miraculously legitimize a contract of 100 hours for 1 cheeseburger.
Quote:
Now that may sound absurd to some but in reality, employers are moving jobs elsewhere leaving you jobless.
Again, this is irrelevant to the argument. AKA 'red herring'.
threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment.
Law
constraint illegally exercised to force someone to perform an act.
archaic
forcible restraint or imprisonment.
I didn't create the situation of you being starved. You did that to yourself. You can't call that "under duress."
Now establishing a minimum wage law is to put employers under duress "legally."
I did not necessarily put myself in a position of being starved. That's an incorrect assumption based on incomplete information. If we were in court, I would object under 'assumes facts not entered into evidence'. Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether you put me in that situation or not, it's still duress.
If you don't like my terms for buying a cheeseburger in exchange for 100 hours of labor, then go buy one from someone else. I see hungry people lined up behind you who are willing to agree to my terms. If you want compassion, go see your mama as I have a business to run.
I.
Compassion is irrelevant. So is supply and demand. We are talking about the legal relevancy of contract. I'm arguing that an unfair deal is NOT a relevant contract. You seem to believe otherwise. If your reasoning behind these beliefs is entirely based on red herring arguments such as 'compassion', I believe you have lost the debate.
Quote:
In a free market, supply and demand determine the value of my cheeseburger. If no one buys, I must lower the price to that at or near the price of my competitors. What? You only want to work 20 minutes for a cheeseburger? Sorry, that's not the going rate around here. You're going to have to adjust your expectations.
Sounds great, except we don't have a free market. We have a market based on deceptive fraud, corruption, usury, and theft.
Quote:
As long as there are others selling cheeseburgers, you cannot make any claim of coersion (not that it would be valid anyhow). If all available cheeseburgers are at or near the same exchange rate, and you feel that is unacceptable, then you're going to have to find another way to eat, particularly if others are willing to pay that 100 hour exchange rate.
Sure I can make an argument of coercion. My argument is based upon fundamental pillars of contract law. Again, contracts entered into under duress or coercion are not valid. Contracts entered into with no consideration are not valid. To compel someone to do something does not make for a legal, ethical, or moral contract.
Quote:
Businesses are not in the business of social obligation to feed the hungry or accomodate the lazy and unmotivated. They are in business to generate profit for the stakeholders. Morals have nothing to do with it. If you want charity, go find a church. And fair is defined as a place where people get ribbons for having the prettiest pig. Neither morals nor fairness come into play when determining at the validity of a contract after signing time where both parties freely agreed, so yes, it is legal
Your opinions as to why companies are in business are not relevant. Your opinions of morality are not, either.
So? Even if this is true it certainly does not miraculously legitimize a contract of 100 hours for 1 cheeseburger.
The contract is legitmate as long as I offered it at a firm rate and you accepted that offer. For further evidence I could perhaps show that I sold five other cheeseburgers that week at that rate. Just because you showed up hungry and found the price to be high does not invalidate my asking price.
I paid $70K for my current car. Did I think that a high price? Yes, I did. Did I have grounds to sign the sales contract and then claim the price too high? Nope. I had other options available (Kia, Toyota, Hyundai) and others had paid the asking rate for simialr cars before me. If I did not buy it at that price someone else would be along to do so. Was the contract valid? Damn right it was! I paid it because that was the going rate and that was the car I wanted. Same with cheeseburgers. Same with jobs. Either you accept it or you don't. If the latter, someone else will be along who will accept the terms while you look for another cheeseburger/job/whatever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
