Anglo American Platinum fired 12,000 striking miners

[Tiberius]

Retention and replacement are the costs of doing business. I personally don;t see the need to subsidize someone else's investments in this manner (and I couldn't..with a straight face, ask someone else to subsidize mine in this manner...particularly the motherfucker I'd be levying the fine against....).

Right, and if a business can lower the cost of replacement by putting a notice period into a contract, that is a good business plan.

Isn't it in the company;s best interests to properly screen and interview prospective employees and then take steps to ensure they have good retention rates? I'm not personally sure that a binding contract of labor is what's called for in the retention dept.

Sure, but screening / interviewing can only go so far. At the end of the day, you could interview a person who has really good references and seems to know the stuff, but leaves without warning on some particular day. People are ultimately unpredictable.

You can also leave between the hours of 9-5, I'm guessing, without being fined. The companies in question btw also felt that they should be able to dictate where a person was under penalty of fine during the hours that their contract was in effect. Just so happened that their contract was in effect all the time. There were a lot of fun things in their contracts, none of them enforceable (not even by a fine) anymore.

Well, if you are required to be at the job between 9 and 5, and only show up for work between 10 and 4, you'll get fired pretty quickly for being in breach of contract. I don't agree with the companies you mention; no contract should be in effect 24/7 unless there are special circumstances. By the way, could you give the name of the companies involved? I'd like to read up on this.

Again I think this is a fundamental difference of opinion between us.

Not sure how this is a difference of opinion? If a contract stipulates that you must give two weeks notice before leaving the job, and you leave the job before complying with that, then assuming you signed the contract, you are in breach of it. Period. What is the point of a contract if either employer or employee can just ignore sections of it?

We have different laws to handle that...and IIRC it would be in the arena of fraud and malfeasance.

Sure, but only if the smaller company could prove it. A case against a big corporation is going to take much longer than a case against an individual who broke their contract. In any case, this is probably one of the reasons why the law is in effect. As I've said before; it makes things easier for a company to function, since your vital employees can't just decide not to work one day.

If you "must" it is not voluntary. Further, if this "must" is enforced by legal proceedings and fines it has firmly left the territory of what I would call voluntary. I mean, sure, paying a speeding ticket is "voluntary" as well...

It is voluntary because the employee signed a contract in which the clause existed. Effectively, the employee agreed to a legally binding contract where they agreed to give x weeks notice before leaving the job. They weren't forced into the contract; they could have turned it down.

If you go by your definition, then no job is voluntary, which is absurd since jobs are entirely based upon an agreement between employee and employer.

The elephant in this particular room is what happens if said employee, upon quitting their job with no notice "voluntarily" decides not to pay the fine. There really isn't any way around having what you're describing called a compulsory obligation of labor.

Yes, there is...if they've agreed to it! It's a stipulation of the job, just as having to go to work is a stipulation of the job.

Here (and I'm assuming where you are as well) it's been decided that affording a business the power of the state to tell an employee what they "must" do, specifically with regards to their labor, is a recipe for tears. We have a long, violent history full of precedent that has led us to this decision. After the abolition of the most obvious form of compulsory labor (slavery) various other types of compulsory labor existed (in various industries) for quite some time. The most horrid examples, being contractual agreements.

I think you're entirely getting the wrong end of the stick here. A company must to some degree have the power to tell an employee what they "must" do, otherwise how can any employee be handled? Granted, an employee does not have to do what the company tells them they "must", but if they choose to do that, they must face the consequences, having signed a contract which stipulates what they must do.

A contract which says that you must come to work between the hours of 9 and 5 is not compulsory labour; it's a simple contract that both parties have agreed to. One could only call it compulsory labour if the employee was being made to do it against their will. Likewise, a contract which says that before an employee leaves they must give a notice period is not compulsory labour, since once again the employee has already agreed to this, and thus is not being made to do it against their will.

It only becomes compulsory labour if the worker leaves without giving notice, and the company drags them to court and the court orders that the labour be completed. That, I would agree, is compulsory labour...the person is being forced to do work against their will, and I don't agree with it. However, a simple stipulation of a contract is not compulsory labour (it's voluntarily signed), neither is a fine or other form of punishment (bad reference, etc.) since at the end of the day, it was the employee who broke the voluntarily agreed contract.

(all labor here in the US, is, by law, voluntary - paid or unpaid)

As is labour here in the UK. You cannot be forced to work against your will. That is not what a notice period is, since the employee has already agreed to it when they signed the contract.

Something occurred to me re-reading this. Your comment about it not being in a businesses best interests to "go to court over it" over a frycook. I can;t imagine a situation or position which would not warrant this claus in a contract if it were enforceable, whether or not you felt that you were going to avail yourself of such a handy tool probably shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not you set yourself up so that it is available. We're proposing legislation that is (at the very least) potentially horrid...and then just waving our hands to say "but these guys will use this highly questionable tool responsibly and ethically". Well, all evidence points to the contrary.

Erm...it is in a contract. That is what a notice period is!