|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Employment article.|
|Employment has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Need some balance
I agree I just read the article and found the intro "Employment is a contract between two parties, one being the employer and the other being the employee. Employment opportunity comes directly from investment (including foreign direct investment and investment bank) to gain excessive profit in a Business plan in the capitalist economy." to be very biased and not NPV. There are or have been systems other than capitalism that have created jobs. In addition to which no investment or business plan is necessary for a job to be created. For example a porter does not need an investment to create their own job. Nor do they need a business plan. They simply need to wait around at a place where people are likely to need something to be carried. I don't have the knowledge to rewrite the article well, but I think it is in dire need of a more NPV rewrite. Jtan163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
In the United States, the standard employment relationship is not a contract and is considered to be at-will meaning that the employer and employee are both free to terminate the employment at any time and for any cause, or for no cause at all.
What's the situation in other countries? Does one get sued or jailed for quitting a job as a stock boy in Mexico City, London, or Bangladesh? If the situation is different elsewhere, it should be explained. If not, the "in the United States" statement should be removed. I'm pretty sure that throughout the free world, the typical laborer can leave employment at will. There are exceptions, of course, but that's why the word "standard" is there. Kafziel Talk 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it really a contract, classical contract theory requires freedom to contract, and equal power position of contracting parties. Doe a person without sufficent money have a real choice about the terms of the contract they enter into????JUBALCAIN 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. The theory is that the worker possesses something of value and that it could be "sold" somewhere else if need-be. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever the common law or commercial code situation, in the United States at least, so-called "full time" or "direct" employment is the anti-thesis of a contract. The employee is absolutely not a contractor and this is the subject matter of the well known 20 questions. The current Lede text is yet another example of a provincial American assumption of the universality of capitalist relations and is diametrically the opposite of the situation in the USA and this should be made clear as in fact it's more or less universally the case. Lycurgus (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Depends what you call the free world. In Australia, New Zealand and the EU most employment is not "at will". There are statutory protections for employees and employers, extensive proections against arbitary dismissal by employers, although these protections have been weakened over teh past 20 years or so.
- In what I think of as the "free world" the US's "at will" agreements are the exception not the rule.
- If you include countires such as Malaysia, Taiwan, India which are technically democracies or republis (but not all that free in reality) then you get "At will" contracts being more the norm. 18.104.22.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
" . . . By the mid-1990s, Los Angeles had become the nation’s capital of low-wage labor and remains so to this day: Twenty-eight percent of full-time workers in L.A. County make less than $25,000 a year. In Chicago, only 19 percent of workers earn so little. . . "
I think this has some interesting material. Now, this article does seem to have a viewpoint, but I don't think we should exclude it for that reason. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been working on a page gearing specifically to employment and disabilities, I think I have some information to expand on the employment relations section, specifically on the topic of socialization. Link to page employment (disabilities). Since a page on topic already exist, the page I had created breaks on the laws of disambiguation. Trying to find a home for good researched information. Any suggestions on what to do with information, comment on the page's talk page. Thanks.
U.S. Federal income tax withholding
There seems to be a considerable degree of synthesis in this newly expanded section: it reads like an attempt to build a case rather than to neutrally report previously published commentary: Noyster (talk), 11:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I deleted the offending material. This material is not only prohibited original research, it's incorrect research. It is part of a tax evasion scam in the United States called "Cracking the Code," involving a promoter who is a convicted felon who has served two terms in federal prison for tax-related crimes (the latter prison term for using this particular scam on his own tax returns). At least six other individuals have been sent to federal prison in relation to the scam (four of whom are in custody at this time). The wife of the promoter of the scam is awaiting sentencing as well. I've been studying these scams for over 15 years -- and this one in particular for over seven years. Famspear (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- PS: The essential basis for the scam is the false argument that under the U.S. federal income tax laws, "income" means only amounts received in an activity connected to the exercise of a "federal privilege." There is absolutely nothing in the U.S. Constitution or any tax statute that says any such thing. Every single federal court that has decided the issue has rejected it -- sometimes by specifically mentioning the name of the scam itself, or the name of its promoter, or both. Famspear (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Currently Employed redirects to Employment:  However, the term "employed" has an independent content (at least as used by major international organisations like the International Labour Organisation, OECD, European Union) and hence deserves a separate article. According to the ILO, the "employed" comprise of all persons above a specified age who during a specified brief period were either in paid employment or were in self-employment. The latter includes employers, own account workers, members of a family farm, persons who performed some work for profit or family gain. Note that the group of self-employed as a rule, are not in an employer-employee contractual relationship. The current article on Employment makes occasional reference to the term "employed", but effectively uses terms "employed", "employee" and "worker" as synonyms. On the other hand, the ILO, OECD and Eurostat use the term "employed" in a broader sense, including self-employed.
In this context I'd like to point out also a more general and broader issue. Several Wikipedia articles, including Employment and Self-employment are based on implicit assumption that the content and use of these terms is primarily defined by English-speaking countries (USA, UK, Australia, Canada, India etc). It is still largely ignored that there are several international bodies, like the UN, ILO, OECD, Council of Europe, European Union etc. which have English as one of their official languages and which heavily use these terms in international comparative context and also as concepts in international law. For international readers these aspects are no less interesting and relevant than any country-specific examples. I shall encourage contributors to add those international aspects.--VillaK (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The interwiki links of this article are problematic. Some, like the French "Emploi" address employment in a broader sense, covering various forms of employment, addressing the legal, statistical and macroeconomic ascpects. Others, like the Russian "Трудовые_отношения" (Work relationship) and Italian "Rapporto di lavoro" address only the legal aspects of worker-employer relationship. Note that in Russian Wikipedia there is also an article "Занятость", which address the economic aspect of employment. The Slovenian link to "Delodajalec" (Employer) is incorrect as it deals with the employer only.--VillaK (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)