雇佣合同

I. Ayres, Stewart J. Schwab
{"title":"雇佣合同","authors":"I. Ayres, Stewart J. Schwab","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.192132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is an edited transcript of a lecture on the Employment Contract presented to a conference of state law judges. Part I introduces a model of a well-functioning labor market, which provides all employee benefits, and only those employee benefits, that employees value more than it costs employers to provide. Part II articulates ways in which labor markets might fail to provide such cost-justified benefits. Market failures can arise from asymmetric information, asymmetric performance, or collective goods. Such failures can justify legal intervention, although policymakers must worry about the cure being worse than the disease. Additionally, even without market failure policymakers might intervene for paternalistic or distributive reasons. Part III separates out \"unequal bargaining power\" as an argument for legal intervention, and argues it does not describe a market failure and is generally an incoherent justification for legal intervention. Part IV applies this framework to evaluate legal erosions of the employment-at-will doctrine. Many courts have upheld claims that a termination breached an implied-in-fact promise not to dismiss a worker without cause. Sometimes, these claims can be justified as correcting problems of opportunism arising from asymmetric performance, problems that vary during the life cycle of a career employee. Contract protections generally are default rules, in that parties can reject them through explicit clauses in a contract. The article articulates the basic theories of default rules, which include mimic-the-market rules and penalty defaults. Other courts have recognized the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. This tort can be justified as an effort to have employers internalize third-party effects of discharges.","PeriodicalId":171240,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law School","volume":"236 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"27","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Employment Contract\",\"authors\":\"I. Ayres, Stewart J. Schwab\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.192132\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article is an edited transcript of a lecture on the Employment Contract presented to a conference of state law judges. Part I introduces a model of a well-functioning labor market, which provides all employee benefits, and only those employee benefits, that employees value more than it costs employers to provide. Part II articulates ways in which labor markets might fail to provide such cost-justified benefits. Market failures can arise from asymmetric information, asymmetric performance, or collective goods. Such failures can justify legal intervention, although policymakers must worry about the cure being worse than the disease. Additionally, even without market failure policymakers might intervene for paternalistic or distributive reasons. Part III separates out \\\"unequal bargaining power\\\" as an argument for legal intervention, and argues it does not describe a market failure and is generally an incoherent justification for legal intervention. Part IV applies this framework to evaluate legal erosions of the employment-at-will doctrine. Many courts have upheld claims that a termination breached an implied-in-fact promise not to dismiss a worker without cause. Sometimes, these claims can be justified as correcting problems of opportunism arising from asymmetric performance, problems that vary during the life cycle of a career employee. Contract protections generally are default rules, in that parties can reject them through explicit clauses in a contract. The article articulates the basic theories of default rules, which include mimic-the-market rules and penalty defaults. Other courts have recognized the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. This tort can be justified as an effort to have employers internalize third-party effects of discharges.\",\"PeriodicalId\":171240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Yale Law School\",\"volume\":\"236 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"27\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Yale Law School\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.192132\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yale Law School","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.192132","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

摘要

这篇文章是一篇关于雇佣合同的演讲的编辑文本,该演讲是在州法律法官会议上发表的。第一部分介绍了一个运作良好的劳动力市场模型,它提供所有员工福利,而且只有那些员工重视的员工福利,才比雇主提供的成本高。第二部分阐述了劳动力市场可能无法提供这种成本合理的好处的方式。市场失灵可能源于信息不对称、绩效不对称或集体商品。这种失败可以证明法律干预是合理的,尽管政策制定者必须担心治疗比疾病本身更糟糕。此外,即使没有市场失灵,政策制定者也可能出于家长式作风或分配原因进行干预。第三部分将“不平等议价能力”作为法律干预的论据,并认为它没有描述市场失灵,通常是法律干预的不连贯理由。第四部分运用这一框架来评估随意雇佣原则的法律侵蚀。许多法院都支持这样的说法,即解雇违反了不无故解雇工人的事实暗示承诺。有时,这些要求可以被证明是为了纠正由于不对称的表现而产生的机会主义问题,这些问题在职业员工的生命周期中是不同的。合同保护通常是默认规则,因为当事人可以通过合同中的明确条款拒绝它们。本文阐述了违约规则的基本理论,包括模仿市场规则和惩罚违约规则。其他法院也承认违反公共政策的不当解雇侵权行为。这种侵权行为可以被证明是一种让雇主将解雇的第三方效应内化的努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Employment Contract
This article is an edited transcript of a lecture on the Employment Contract presented to a conference of state law judges. Part I introduces a model of a well-functioning labor market, which provides all employee benefits, and only those employee benefits, that employees value more than it costs employers to provide. Part II articulates ways in which labor markets might fail to provide such cost-justified benefits. Market failures can arise from asymmetric information, asymmetric performance, or collective goods. Such failures can justify legal intervention, although policymakers must worry about the cure being worse than the disease. Additionally, even without market failure policymakers might intervene for paternalistic or distributive reasons. Part III separates out "unequal bargaining power" as an argument for legal intervention, and argues it does not describe a market failure and is generally an incoherent justification for legal intervention. Part IV applies this framework to evaluate legal erosions of the employment-at-will doctrine. Many courts have upheld claims that a termination breached an implied-in-fact promise not to dismiss a worker without cause. Sometimes, these claims can be justified as correcting problems of opportunism arising from asymmetric performance, problems that vary during the life cycle of a career employee. Contract protections generally are default rules, in that parties can reject them through explicit clauses in a contract. The article articulates the basic theories of default rules, which include mimic-the-market rules and penalty defaults. Other courts have recognized the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. This tort can be justified as an effort to have employers internalize third-party effects of discharges.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信