The law on ‘employee-generated intellectual property’ differs amongst jurisdictions in the world. In the midst of the differences, one truth is still apparent. This is the fact that: somehow the employer has an edge (or could have an edge) - in terms of ‘ownership’ over the invention of his employee(s) - and therefore the resulting ‘pecuniary gains’. In the midst of this ‘seeming’ similarities as regards the positions of law in various jurisdictions, one might conclude that the law unduly ‘favours’ the employer. However, a close scrutiny of the laws does not necessarily suggest the ‘reverse’, instead, what most legal systems (in different countries) have: is a provision that tends to ‘balance’ the (colossal) right of the employer with that of the employee.This paper answers the question whether an employer is ‘unduly favoured’ and whether the employee ‘reward is meaningless.’ Two types of such ‘generated work’ are used in answering the question - Copyrightable works and patentable inventions. The discussion reflects that the employer is not ‘unduly favoured’ under the law and in every intellectual property regime. However as regards (meaningful) reward to the employee, because of the diverse positions of law in different jurisdictions; in some, the reward is meaningful, while in others, it is not. The laws in three jurisdictions (US, Germany and UK) are used in the course of the discussion, especially as regards patents/inventions. A ‘fused view’ is presented in respect of ‘copyrightable work’ because the law in this respect in the chosen jurisdictions appears largely similar.
{"title":"'The Law on ‘Employee-Generated Intellectual Property’ Unduly Favours the Employer and Creates Meaningless Reward for the Employee': A Comparison of Current US, Germany and UK IP Regime","authors":"Gbenga A. Odugbemi","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2676869","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2676869","url":null,"abstract":"The law on ‘employee-generated intellectual property’ differs amongst jurisdictions in the world. In the midst of the differences, one truth is still apparent. This is the fact that: somehow the employer has an edge (or could have an edge) - in terms of ‘ownership’ over the invention of his employee(s) - and therefore the resulting ‘pecuniary gains’. In the midst of this ‘seeming’ similarities as regards the positions of law in various jurisdictions, one might conclude that the law unduly ‘favours’ the employer. However, a close scrutiny of the laws does not necessarily suggest the ‘reverse’, instead, what most legal systems (in different countries) have: is a provision that tends to ‘balance’ the (colossal) right of the employer with that of the employee.This paper answers the question whether an employer is ‘unduly favoured’ and whether the employee ‘reward is meaningless.’ Two types of such ‘generated work’ are used in answering the question - Copyrightable works and patentable inventions. The discussion reflects that the employer is not ‘unduly favoured’ under the law and in every intellectual property regime. However as regards (meaningful) reward to the employee, because of the diverse positions of law in different jurisdictions; in some, the reward is meaningful, while in others, it is not. The laws in three jurisdictions (US, Germany and UK) are used in the course of the discussion, especially as regards patents/inventions. A ‘fused view’ is presented in respect of ‘copyrightable work’ because the law in this respect in the chosen jurisdictions appears largely similar.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129223317","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Judges are often called upon today to determine whether certain workers are “employees” or “independent contractors.” The distinction is important, because only employees have rights under most statutes regulating work, including wage and hour, anti-discrimination, and collective bargaining law. Too often judges exclude workers from statutory protection who resemble what legal scholars have described as typical, industrial employees — long-term, full-time workers with set wages and routinized responsibilities within a large firm. To explain how courts reach these counterintuitive results, the article examines recent federal decisions finding that FedEx delivery drivers are independent contractors rather than employees. It argues that the problem is embedded within the employment contract itself, in the law’s attempt to construe the legal relations of master and servant as a contract. The contemporary employment contract is product of a 19th century incorporation of master-servant authority into contracts for labor services. In the face of institutional disruption, the contradiction within employment between contractual equality and servitude tends to surface in the form of two doctrinal ambiguities. Both make the dominant standard for employment status irresolvable by merging contractual formation and performance. First, the attempt to fit master-servant authority in the framework of contract creates an ambiguity between the activities of bargaining over the work and carrying out the work, or between contracting and producing. Second, it makes ambiguous the relationship between a written agreement and contractual duties. The way in which FedEx organized the drivers’ work manipulated these ambiguities, which enabled the courts to maintain that features of the work that ordinarily, and under the governing legal tests, would be evidence of employment were here consistent with, or even evidence of, independent contracting. In fact, the courts transform some of the same vulnerabilities that place the drivers within the policy concerns of collective bargaining and wage and hour law into evidence of their autonomy. The attempt to encase master-servant relations in contract also destabilizes distinctions between firms and markets. The ambiguity in employment between contracting and producing exposes a tension within major economic theories of the firm: employment is the legal rationale for a firm’s centralized control over indirect, hierarchical, and multilateral relations in production; as a contract, however, employment is a direct and bilateral relationship between equal parties in a market. The FedEx decisions marshal this tension to redefine a firm, as conceptualized by major theories of the firm, as a market. Multilateral relations among drivers as they work under FedEx’s direction appear as bilateral contracts between drivers in a decentralized market. The courts conflate the impersonality of bureaucracy — in which work is embedded in sophisticate
{"title":"From Hierarchies to Markets: FedEx Drivers and the Work Contract as Institutional Marker","authors":"J. Tomassetti","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2515818","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2515818","url":null,"abstract":"Judges are often called upon today to determine whether certain workers are “employees” or “independent contractors.” The distinction is important, because only employees have rights under most statutes regulating work, including wage and hour, anti-discrimination, and collective bargaining law. Too often judges exclude workers from statutory protection who resemble what legal scholars have described as typical, industrial employees — long-term, full-time workers with set wages and routinized responsibilities within a large firm. To explain how courts reach these counterintuitive results, the article examines recent federal decisions finding that FedEx delivery drivers are independent contractors rather than employees. It argues that the problem is embedded within the employment contract itself, in the law’s attempt to construe the legal relations of master and servant as a contract. The contemporary employment contract is product of a 19th century incorporation of master-servant authority into contracts for labor services. In the face of institutional disruption, the contradiction within employment between contractual equality and servitude tends to surface in the form of two doctrinal ambiguities. Both make the dominant standard for employment status irresolvable by merging contractual formation and performance. First, the attempt to fit master-servant authority in the framework of contract creates an ambiguity between the activities of bargaining over the work and carrying out the work, or between contracting and producing. Second, it makes ambiguous the relationship between a written agreement and contractual duties. The way in which FedEx organized the drivers’ work manipulated these ambiguities, which enabled the courts to maintain that features of the work that ordinarily, and under the governing legal tests, would be evidence of employment were here consistent with, or even evidence of, independent contracting. In fact, the courts transform some of the same vulnerabilities that place the drivers within the policy concerns of collective bargaining and wage and hour law into evidence of their autonomy. The attempt to encase master-servant relations in contract also destabilizes distinctions between firms and markets. The ambiguity in employment between contracting and producing exposes a tension within major economic theories of the firm: employment is the legal rationale for a firm’s centralized control over indirect, hierarchical, and multilateral relations in production; as a contract, however, employment is a direct and bilateral relationship between equal parties in a market. The FedEx decisions marshal this tension to redefine a firm, as conceptualized by major theories of the firm, as a market. Multilateral relations among drivers as they work under FedEx’s direction appear as bilateral contracts between drivers in a decentralized market. The courts conflate the impersonality of bureaucracy — in which work is embedded in sophisticate","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115400513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-06-01DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6478.2015.00705.x
P. Almond
This article reviews the last five years of coalition government policy making in relation to occupational health and safety law. It shows that the most significant and influential element of this activity has been the reframing of the wider regulatory system according to a dominant ideological paradigm of ‘common‐sense’ regulation, to the detriment of other considerations and interests. A social constructionist framework assists in setting out the means through which this new ‘symbolic universe’ of regulatory possibility has been constructed and promulgated within the policymaking arena. In particular, it identifies the key role played by processes of deliberative regulatory engagement in the construction and development of this approach, and identifies the inherent vulnerability of ‘thin’ forms of deliberation to this sort of application.
{"title":"Revolution Blues: The Reconstruction of Health and Safety Law as ‘Common‐Sense’ Regulation","authors":"P. Almond","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-6478.2015.00705.x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2015.00705.x","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews the last five years of coalition government policy making in relation to occupational health and safety law. It shows that the most significant and influential element of this activity has been the reframing of the wider regulatory system according to a dominant ideological paradigm of ‘common‐sense’ regulation, to the detriment of other considerations and interests. A social constructionist framework assists in setting out the means through which this new ‘symbolic universe’ of regulatory possibility has been constructed and promulgated within the policymaking arena. In particular, it identifies the key role played by processes of deliberative regulatory engagement in the construction and development of this approach, and identifies the inherent vulnerability of ‘thin’ forms of deliberation to this sort of application.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"119060769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-05-15DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199656967.001.0001
Tarunabh Khaitan
It doesn’t care if your boss fires you because you happen to be a Sagittarius. But a hiring policy that requires a college degree could land him in court. Discrimination law can be counter-intuitive and controversial. Marrying doctrine from five jurisdictions with contemporary political philosophy, this book provides a theoretical defence of this now maturing legal project. More fundamentally, the value of discrimination law is to be found in its enabling us all to lead flourishing lives.Part I gives a theoretically rigorous account of the identity and scope of discrimination law: what makes a legal norm a norm of discrimination law? What is the architecture of discrimination law? Unlike the approach popular with most textbooks, the discussion eschews list-based discussions of protected grounds, instead organising the doctrine in a clear thematic structure.This definitional preamble sets the agenda for the next two parts. Part II draws upon the identity and structure of discrimination law to consider what the point of this area of law is. Attention to legal doctrine rules out many answers that ideologically-entrenched writers have offered to this question. The real point of discrimination law, this Part argues, is to remove abiding, pervasive, and substantial relative group disadvantage. This objective is best defended on liberal rather than egalitarian grounds.Having considered its overall purpose, Part III gives a theoretical account of the duties imposed by discrimination law. A common definition of the antidiscrimination duty accommodates tools as diverse as direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, and reasonable accommodation. These different tools are shown to share a common normative concern and a single analytical structure. Uniquely in the literature, this Part also defends the imposition of these duties only to certain duty-bearers in specified contexts. Finally, the conditions under which affirmative action is justified are explained.
{"title":"A Theory of Discrimination Law","authors":"Tarunabh Khaitan","doi":"10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199656967.001.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199656967.001.0001","url":null,"abstract":"It doesn’t care if your boss fires you because you happen to be a Sagittarius. But a hiring policy that requires a college degree could land him in court. Discrimination law can be counter-intuitive and controversial. Marrying doctrine from five jurisdictions with contemporary political philosophy, this book provides a theoretical defence of this now maturing legal project. More fundamentally, the value of discrimination law is to be found in its enabling us all to lead flourishing lives.Part I gives a theoretically rigorous account of the identity and scope of discrimination law: what makes a legal norm a norm of discrimination law? What is the architecture of discrimination law? Unlike the approach popular with most textbooks, the discussion eschews list-based discussions of protected grounds, instead organising the doctrine in a clear thematic structure.This definitional preamble sets the agenda for the next two parts. Part II draws upon the identity and structure of discrimination law to consider what the point of this area of law is. Attention to legal doctrine rules out many answers that ideologically-entrenched writers have offered to this question. The real point of discrimination law, this Part argues, is to remove abiding, pervasive, and substantial relative group disadvantage. This objective is best defended on liberal rather than egalitarian grounds.Having considered its overall purpose, Part III gives a theoretical account of the duties imposed by discrimination law. A common definition of the antidiscrimination duty accommodates tools as diverse as direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, and reasonable accommodation. These different tools are shown to share a common normative concern and a single analytical structure. Uniquely in the literature, this Part also defends the imposition of these duties only to certain duty-bearers in specified contexts. Finally, the conditions under which affirmative action is justified are explained.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"2011 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127374145","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Amici brief submitted by the Labor Relations and Research Center, University of Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts Wage Campaign, to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the case of Meshna v. Scrivanos. The brief argues that the Massachusetts Tips Act prohibits no-tipping policies and that it does not sanction such no-tipping policies as a lawful business response to customer demand or preference. Furthermore, it argues that no-tipping policies contribute to the impoverishment of the low-wage workforce and foist the social and economic costs of tipping bans onto citizen-tax payers.
{"title":"Amici Brief of Labor Relations and Research Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Massachusetts Wage Campaign, in Meshna v. Scrivanos, SJC 11618","authors":"H. Freeman, Audrey Richardson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2522936","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2522936","url":null,"abstract":"Amici brief submitted by the Labor Relations and Research Center, University of Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts Wage Campaign, to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the case of Meshna v. Scrivanos. The brief argues that the Massachusetts Tips Act prohibits no-tipping policies and that it does not sanction such no-tipping policies as a lawful business response to customer demand or preference. Furthermore, it argues that no-tipping policies contribute to the impoverishment of the low-wage workforce and foist the social and economic costs of tipping bans onto citizen-tax payers.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"32 8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127865884","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-09-08DOI: 10.4337/9781783479269.00014
R. Bird
This chapter explores the intersection of two important factors: 1) the increasing use of smartphones and other technology to reach employees outside of working hours, and 2) regulation by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) designed in part to protect covered workers from employer abuses of working time. After chronicling the rise of fair labor standards and the evolution of boundaries between work and personal time, the chapter reviews leading cases related to the use of portable technology like smartphones and the compensation of off-shift working time. The chapter then proposes a reform to the FLSA to alleviate misuses of off-shift time and offers strategies for employers to minimize administrative costs.
{"title":"The Intersection of Smartphone Technology and Fair Labor Standards","authors":"R. Bird","doi":"10.4337/9781783479269.00014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783479269.00014","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores the intersection of two important factors: 1) the increasing use of smartphones and other technology to reach employees outside of working hours, and 2) regulation by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) designed in part to protect covered workers from employer abuses of working time. After chronicling the rise of fair labor standards and the evolution of boundaries between work and personal time, the chapter reviews leading cases related to the use of portable technology like smartphones and the compensation of off-shift working time. The chapter then proposes a reform to the FLSA to alleviate misuses of off-shift time and offers strategies for employers to minimize administrative costs.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"144 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115969636","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article describes the remedies available to employers who suffer unfair labor practices by labor unions, and contributes to European Union (EU) discussions on how the EU should sanction labor organizations that infringe on fundamental freedoms. These EU discussions have flourished ever since the Court of Justice of the European Union decided the Laval quartet of cases which held that worker concerted activities that impacted freedom of services and establishment in the EU violated EU law. After Laval, the Swedish Labor Court imposed exemplary or punitive damages, on labor unions for violating EU law. The U.S. experience warns against the imposition of punitive damages. Punitive damages may not only be unfair for workers, but may cause unions to become too risk-averse when representing workers. Moreover, workers' concerted activities should be understood as activities commensurate with market freedoms. If such market freedoms are exercised in unfair ways, the unions should be subject to compensatory but not punitive damages.
{"title":"Danbury Hatters in Sweden: A U.S. Perspective on the Available Remedies and Sanctions for Employers Who Suffer Unfair Labor Practices by Labor Unions","authors":"César F. Rosado Marzán, M. Nikitas","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2409058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2409058","url":null,"abstract":"This article describes the remedies available to employers who suffer unfair labor practices by labor unions, and contributes to European Union (EU) discussions on how the EU should sanction labor organizations that infringe on fundamental freedoms. These EU discussions have flourished ever since the Court of Justice of the European Union decided the Laval quartet of cases which held that worker concerted activities that impacted freedom of services and establishment in the EU violated EU law. After Laval, the Swedish Labor Court imposed exemplary or punitive damages, on labor unions for violating EU law. The U.S. experience warns against the imposition of punitive damages. Punitive damages may not only be unfair for workers, but may cause unions to become too risk-averse when representing workers. Moreover, workers' concerted activities should be understood as activities commensurate with market freedoms. If such market freedoms are exercised in unfair ways, the unions should be subject to compensatory but not punitive damages.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125346287","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study addresses issues relating to procedural and labour law regulations governing legal proceedings in labour disputes, such as re-instatement cases, in the courts of general jurisdiction. Emphasis is placed on issues relating to the time limits set for filing employment lawsuits and the manner whereby these time limits shall be counted. The study provides grounds for a proposed change in the rules of territorial jurisdiction over labour disputes and identifies issues relating to evidence relevance and evidence admissibility in re-instatement law cases. The study highlights challenges associated with the presentation of evidence by employees. Special attention is given to imperfections in the statutory dismissal procedure. The study offers a dismissal procedure for each ground for employee dismissal set forth in Article 81 of the Russian Federation Labour Code and proposes ways to streamline the labour and civil procedural laws in the context of the issues addressed.
{"title":"Labour Disputes: Issues Relating to Substantive Law and Procedure in the Legal Process","authors":"Marina O. Byanova","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2424700","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2424700","url":null,"abstract":"This study addresses issues relating to procedural and labour law regulations governing legal proceedings in labour disputes, such as re-instatement cases, in the courts of general jurisdiction. Emphasis is placed on issues relating to the time limits set for filing employment lawsuits and the manner whereby these time limits shall be counted. The study provides grounds for a proposed change in the rules of territorial jurisdiction over labour disputes and identifies issues relating to evidence relevance and evidence admissibility in re-instatement law cases. The study highlights challenges associated with the presentation of evidence by employees. Special attention is given to imperfections in the statutory dismissal procedure. The study offers a dismissal procedure for each ground for employee dismissal set forth in Article 81 of the Russian Federation Labour Code and proposes ways to streamline the labour and civil procedural laws in the context of the issues addressed.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"5 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123664250","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This research intends to explore the existence and concept of glass ceiling in Pakistan. As it is widely cited that glass ceiling refers to the position one wants to achieve and is reachable yet he/she is deprived of that position due to some discriminatory effect. Generally the deprived are the obvious minorities and most certainly the women of society in context with the corporate world. But the emerging role of women as companies CEOs, policy makers and department heads of various companies in Pakistan motivates this study to find whether it is really gender discrimination being tagged as glass ceiling in Pakistan or is it mere perception leading us away from actual facts.
{"title":"Glass Ceiling in Pakistan: A Myth or Reality?","authors":"Khurram Shakir, S. J. Siddiqui","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2462279","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2462279","url":null,"abstract":"This research intends to explore the existence and concept of glass ceiling in Pakistan. As it is widely cited that glass ceiling refers to the position one wants to achieve and is reachable yet he/she is deprived of that position due to some discriminatory effect. Generally the deprived are the obvious minorities and most certainly the women of society in context with the corporate world. But the emerging role of women as companies CEOs, policy makers and department heads of various companies in Pakistan motivates this study to find whether it is really gender discrimination being tagged as glass ceiling in Pakistan or is it mere perception leading us away from actual facts.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132314540","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Guido Bünstorf, C. Engel, Sven J. Fischer, W. Güth
We experimentally test the effect of enforceable non-compete clauses on working efforts. The employee can invest into the probability of making a profitable innovation. After a successful innovation (Win) the employee may want to leave the firm (Shift) whereas after an innovation failure (Lose) he may remain (Stay) . In the treatments with non-compete clause, but not in the baseline, the employer can prevent successful innovators from leaving the firm. With standard preferences, effort should be lower if the worker cannot leave the firm, except if compulsory compensation for having to stay is very high. By contrast we find no reduction in effort even if compensation is low. Employers anticipate the incentive problem and pay a higher wage which employees reciprocate by higher effort.
{"title":"Win Shift Lose Stay – An Experimental Test of Non-Compete Clauses","authors":"Guido Bünstorf, C. Engel, Sven J. Fischer, W. Güth","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2330262","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2330262","url":null,"abstract":"We experimentally test the effect of enforceable non-compete clauses on working efforts. The employee can invest into the probability of making a profitable innovation. After a successful innovation (Win) the employee may want to leave the firm (Shift) whereas after an innovation failure (Lose) he may remain (Stay) . In the treatments with non-compete clause, but not in the baseline, the employer can prevent successful innovators from leaving the firm. With standard preferences, effort should be lower if the worker cannot leave the firm, except if compulsory compensation for having to stay is very high. By contrast we find no reduction in effort even if compensation is low. Employers anticipate the incentive problem and pay a higher wage which employees reciprocate by higher effort.","PeriodicalId":357008,"journal":{"name":"Employment Law eJournal","volume":"109 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114481649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：