• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Would it be legal to sign away your rights to a corporation?

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Was trying to expain liberty so someone who does not want to seem to understand this concept.

For the purposes of this discussion let's go with all drug use, on your time, was legal. So the arguement is that a corporation who is only paying you for the time that you're working on its behalf, can dictate what you do on your free time, provided that what you do is legal where and when you do it. In this case it was about using marijuana. However if a business/corporation can dictate even one aspect of your legal free time, what else can be dictated?

I see this as a gate way into saying, if you own guns, go shooting, engage in carnal activities, eat butter, drive a car that has an I.C.E., or any number of otherwise legal activities, that you can be fired/denied a job. Mind you, you're only being compensated for the time spent "on the clock" but the rest of your time is under their control as well?

What are your thoughts? Could/Should all/any companies create or beable to create contracts of this nature that would be legally binding? I could understand a contract of this nature if you're salary, hence, always "on the clock" but, I am generally refering to time card punching jobs/work.



Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
I would say it is legal for a company/corporation to make demands upon what a person does or doesn't do on their free time as a condition of employment. Especially since they already do that by requiring random drug testing as a condition of employment so why wouldn't that also encompass any other activity whether that activity is legal or not?

I would also say it is legal for a person to not accept employment with any company/corporation that makes demands upon what a person does or doesn't do on their free time.

I would say that would be liberty for both sides.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Midwest

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
305
Location
Boone County, KY
The company can dictate what you do off the job. Regarding marijuana, suppose you smoked all weekend on your free time off. But Monday morning you go to work and they do a random drug test on you and found marijuana in your system. They can fire you for failing a drug test even if you did not smoke on the job.

How? If company policy has a no drugs policy and it says it in their handbook and you signed a piece of paper agreeing to company policies as a condition for employment. They can use that against you.


Another way a corporation governs your life is through HOA's, protective and/or restrictive covenants & deed restrictions . Before buying a house in some gated lot or development , you agree to conditions and restrictions in order to buy a house in that development. The deed restrictions say you cannot put up an American flag or Christmas decorations. And if you do you can get fined an/or hauled off to court. You signed a private binding contract and agreed to it's terms and restrictions.

So yes, signing your rights away in those examples are legal. The arguments are that you don't have to work for some place that has policies like that in force. Or you don't have to live in some development that takes away your rights for self expression.

Is this right or fair? It's the law, unless it violates state or Federal Law.
.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
That's the whole point of a contract. Each side has the freedom to agree to the terms.

You aren't fired for the "off-duty smoking," in as much as you are fired for breach of contract.

The employer probably gets cheaper liability insurance if he tests for drugs. Whereas, he might be more liable if a hung-over employee causes an accident, and he didn't have methods and policies in place to discourage it.

Don't like it? Get a job somewhere else where the employer doesn't mind what you do off duty. Keep in mind he might pay less because his insurance is higher.

The specifics are variable, of course. That's just one example.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
night, while you are correct on the military, do not forget those DoD civilians/contractors who either hold clearances or work on 'sensitive' equipment and signed away their rights.

ipse
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
To be pedantic about the whole thing: No, you cannot sign away your rights. They will exist regardless if you exercise them or not. (Military service being a trade of certain rights for other rights.)

What you are doing is agreeing to conform your behavior to the desires/dictates of an employer in exchange for certain tangible things.

It's like the perpetual discussion of a private business' "right" to prohibit firearms on its property vs. your "right" to keep and bear arms extending to doing so on someone else's private property.

I see the major point of the question as falling somewhere along the lines of "Can a corporation ask you not to exercise your rights?" The answer, of course, is that they can ask all they want. It is up to you to decide whether or not to do so.

stay safe.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
So, how can you justify your answer? You're saying that an entity, that exists only on paper, has the right to dictate what you do with your free time. So, without any law prohibiting it, this imaginary entity can make any demands it wants? So it would be fine to say that you cannot own guns as a condition of working at BOEING? Not bringing them into the office I can understand but disagree with.

I thought that you could not really give up rights and that that there was not such thing as a valid contract that demanded a violation/surrender of rights.

What about being forced to pay x% of your earnings to pay off your boss's boat, retirement, car, etc? Would that be legal? Like in a 1099, you make a sale, YOUR cut is 25% of total sale. Then your boss wants an extra X% of your cut to be able to get your pay check and he withholds that extra X%.



Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
So, how can you justify your answer? You're saying that an entity, that exists only on paper, has the right to dictate what you do with your free time. So, without any law prohibiting it, this imaginary entity can make any demands it wants? So it would be fine to say that you cannot own guns as a condition of working at BOEING? Not bringing them into the office I can understand but disagree with.

I thought that you could not really give up rights and that that there was not such thing as a valid contract that demanded a violation/surrender of rights.

What about being forced to pay x% of your earnings to pay off your boss's boat, retirement, car, etc? Would that be legal? Like in a 1099, you make a sale, YOUR cut is 25% of total sale. Then your boss wants an extra X% of your cut to be able to get your pay check and he withholds that extra X%.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

that entity, existing only on paper, has been given by the highest court in the land ~ personification.

and you are now reaching by changing your original question of contractual employment and your 'off duty' rights.

as skid states...if you agree for 'considerations' and contractually sign that agreement...guess you are out of rights and money and whatever else you sold your soul for.

ipse
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Your employer??? What is that???? You have been conned into believing you are an employee. Who conned you into this concept? The federal government? Ask the IRS. According to them you are either employed or unemployed. Being employed is either being self-employed or employed by another, and in either case you are paying (directly or indirectly) a tax. Unemployed is the person receiving some assistance from the government. Tax/money transferred to the unemployed. Those not employed or unemployed don't exist as far as the government is concerned.

At a young age I learned that my labor is my property. And I can contract to trade that property or any part of that property with others. Contracts are to equally benefit all parties to the contract. Anything happening outside the four corners of the contract has no effect on the contract. Anything outside the contract that interferes with the performance of the contract can effect the contract. Under the law no one can contract to perform an illegal act. And you can forfeit constitutional rights in a contract such as free speech for example.

We contract for almost everything we do in our lives, but when it comes to a “job” we don't see it as an opportunity to contract. Well, I do. We even talk about the Prima Donnas and their sport contracts. What about your contract for your property?
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
Your employer??? What is that???? You have been conned into believing you are an employee. Who conned you into this concept? The federal government? Ask the IRS. According to them you are either employed or unemployed. Being employed is either being self-employed or employed by another, and in either case you are paying (directly or indirectly) a tax. Unemployed is the person receiving some assistance from the government. Tax/money transferred to the unemployed. Those not employed or unemployed don't exist as far as the government is concerned.

At a young age I learned that my labor is my property. And I can contract to trade that property or any part of that property with others. Contracts are to equally benefit all parties to the contract. Anything happening outside the four corners of the contract has no effect on the contract. Anything outside the contract that interferes with the performance of the contract can effect the contract. Under the law no one can contract to perform an illegal act. And you can forfeit constitutional rights in a contract such as free speech for example.

We contract for almost everything we do in our lives, but when it comes to a “job” we don't see it as an opportunity to contract. Well, I do. We even talk about the Prima Donnas and their sport contracts. What about your contract for your property?

Look up "at-will employment." No need for a contract. No need for a breach. If they don't like your guns, your dope, the cut of your jib, whatever -- its "AMF" for you in most states. . . . That is unless you are a well-heeled executive with a "term contract of employment," or you work in a union shop with a due process right not to be terminated without "good cause."

Don't like it? Start your own business, become a plutocrat or organize your workplace.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
So, how can you justify your answer? You're saying that an entity, that exists only on paper, has the right to dictate what you do with your free time. So, without any law prohibiting it, this imaginary entity can make any demands it wants? So it would be fine to say that you cannot own guns as a condition of working at BOEING? Not bringing them into the office I can understand but disagree with.

I thought that you could not really give up rights and that that there was not such thing as a valid contract that demanded a violation/surrender of rights.

What about being forced to pay x% of your earnings to pay off your boss's boat, retirement, car, etc? Would that be legal? Like in a 1099, you make a sale, YOUR cut is 25% of total sale. Then your boss wants an extra X% of your cut to be able to get your pay check and he withholds that extra X%.



Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
Incorrect. What is being said is that an employer stipulates that the employee will not engage in certain activities in their free time as a condition of employment. Or even the employer stipulating that paying his car payments as a condition of employment. "As a condition of employment" means don't do what the employer says not to do or do what the employer says to do and keep your job. But if you do what the employer says not to do or do not do what the employers says to do then you lose your job.

Or you can just not work for that employer.

Still seems like liberty for both to me. Especially since there is no right to have a job nor is there any right to have a job without conditions of employment attached to that job.

Now about that "giving up rights" thing. No rights are given up. All that is happening is an employee is agreeing (a contract) to not exercise his rights in ways the employer says are not acceptable in exchange for being paid wages and benefits.

When a customer leaves his gun in the car and goes shopping in a business with a no guns rule then the customer is not giving up his right but is agreeing to not exercise his right in exchange for the ability to buy stuff.

In effect the employer/business is offering a mutually agreed upon deal to the employee/customer where both get something of value from the other in exchange for agreed upon behavior.

You cannot give up rights but you can either agree not to exercise them or be forced not to exercise them. One is your choice... the other is infringing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Incorrect. What is being said is that an employer stipulates that the employee will not engage in certain activities in their free time as a condition of employment. Or even the employer stipulating that paying his car payments as a condition of employment. "As a condition of employment" means don't do what the employer says not to do or do what the employer says to do and keep your job. But if you do what the employer says not to do or do not do what the employers says to do then you lose your job.

Or you can just not work for that employer.

Still seems like liberty for both to me. Especially since there is no right to have a job nor is there any right to have a job without conditions of employment attached to that job.

Now about that "giving up rights" thing. No rights are given up. All that is happening is an employee is agreeing (a contract) to not exercise his rights in ways the employer says are not acceptable in exchange for being paid wages and benefits.

When a customer leaves his gun in the car and goes shopping in a business with a no guns rule then the customer is not giving up his right but is agreeing to not exercise his right in exchange for the ability to buy stuff.

In effect the employer/business is offering a mutually agreed upon deal to the employee/customer where both get something of value from the other in exchange for agreed upon behavior.

You cannot give up rights but you can either agree not to exercise them or be forced not to exercise them. One is your choice... the other is infringing.
The boat thing was about a 1099 job.

But in a case of contract non1099 job, if you agree to pay me 10 per hour and at the end of 40 hour pay period the pay is less than 400$, how can that be legal, provided that there is no contract providing for pay being less than 10 per hour.

Also, do you believe that the corporations should have the right to dictate what you do during your unpaid/personal time? Mind you I could think of a couple of limited jobs where that could be required. But about the adverage job, I could not see an allowance for that.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
The boat thing was about a 1099 job.

But in a case of contract non1099 job, if you agree to pay me 10 per hour and at the end of 40 hour pay period the pay is less than 400$, how can that be legal, provided that there is no contract providing for pay being less than 10 per hour.

Also, do you believe that the corporations should have the right to dictate what you do during your unpaid/personal time? Mind you I could think of a couple of limited jobs where that could be required. But about the adverage job, I could not see an allowance for that.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

freedom, happens all the time in fact, the horror stories i hear about those who work on the AK fishing boats is disgusting... those who sign on, agree to not receiving their full salary at the end of a specific period 18 months is the period have consistently heard about. further you are charged for your jackets, knives, and so forth and as long as you do not quit/get fired you will receive what was agreed upon minus jackets, knives, etc. if you get quit/get fired you get pennies on the dollar and in some cases not enough to get back to the continental states.

the personal time has been address already...

ipse
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
So, how can you justify your answer? You're saying that an entity, that exists only on paper, has the right to dictate what you do with your free time. So, without any law prohibiting it, this imaginary entity can make any demands it wants? So it would be fine to say that you cannot own guns as a condition of working at BOEING? Not bringing them into the office I can understand but disagree with.

I thought that you could not really give up rights and that that there was not such thing as a valid contract that demanded a violation/surrender of rights.

What about being forced to pay x% of your earnings to pay off your boss's boat, retirement, car, etc? Would that be legal? Like in a 1099, you make a sale, YOUR cut is 25% of total sale. Then your boss wants an extra X% of your cut to be able to get your pay check and he withholds that extra X%.



Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

No, I am NOT saying that any entity has the right to dictate what you do with your free time. Please stop being childish in how you are responding and reacting to this.

You and your potential employer have the right to negotiate the terms of your employment, and you have the right to accept or reject any term(s). You both also have the right to negotiate any modifications of the originally proposed terms. Neither has the right to force you to negotiate or to not negotiate.

If you do not like the terms you can reject them and find employment elsewhere. It's your call.

stay safe.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
The boat thing was about a 1099 job.

But in a case of contract non1099 job, if you agree to pay me 10 per hour and at the end of 40 hour pay period the pay is less than 400$, how can that be legal, provided that there is no contract providing for pay being less than 10 per hour.

Also, do you believe that the corporations should have the right to dictate what you do during your unpaid/personal time? Mind you I could think of a couple of limited jobs where that could be required. But about the adverage job, I could not see an allowance for that.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
When accepting employment did you agree that you would be liable for any equipment/supplies or damages to equipment/supplies as a condition of being employed? If so then the employer took that out of your $400. And it is legal because you agreed to it as a condition of employment when you took the job. Please bear in mind that there is such a thing as a verbal agreement being legally binding.

So... if you and I are talking about a job and I say you will have to pay for any equipment/supplies necessary to do the job and you will have to pay for any equipment/supplies you damage and you say you will take the job then I get to take the value of that equipment/supplies out of your $400..... because you agreed to it.

Has nothing to do with rights and has everything to do with what you agreed to as a condition of employment. And if you happen to spend more than your wages of $400 on equipment/supplies or do damage costing more than $400 then you made a bad deal and get no wages.

As I said before liberty for both is the employer imposing conditions for employment and you refusing to work for that employer because of those conditions.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
When accepting employment did you agree that you would be liable for any equipment/supplies or damages to equipment/supplies as a condition of being employed? If so then the employer took that out of your $400. And it is legal because you agreed to it as a condition of employment when you took the job. Please bear in mind that there is such a thing as a verbal agreement being legally binding.

So... if you and I are talking about a job and I say you will have to pay for any equipment/supplies necessary to do the job and you will have to pay for any equipment/supplies you damage and you say you will take the job then I get to take the value of that equipment/supplies out of your $400..... because you agreed to it.

Has nothing to do with rights and has everything to do with what you agreed to as a condition of employment. And if you happen to spend more than your wages of $400 on equipment/supplies or do damage costing more than $400 then you made a bad deal and get no wages.

As I said before liberty for both is the employer imposing conditions for employment and you refusing to work for that employer because of those conditions.
Not referring to damages, assuming tasks were preformed to satisfaction. No special purchase equipment, damages, etc.

------------

Now since you can be denied work/fired for exercising rights.

Why is it that we cannot refuse to hire or fire for race, religion, gender, etc?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Originally Posted by Bikenut

When accepting employment did you agree that you would be liable for any equipment/supplies or damages to equipment/supplies as a condition of being employed? If so then the employer took that out of your $400. And it is legal because you agreed to it as a condition of employment when you took the job. Please bear in mind that there is such a thing as a verbal agreement being legally binding.

So... if you and I are talking about a job and I say you will have to pay for any equipment/supplies necessary to do the job and you will have to pay for any equipment/supplies you damage and you say you will take the job then I get to take the value of that equipment/supplies out of your $400..... because you agreed to it.

Has nothing to do with rights and has everything to do with what you agreed to as a condition of employment. And if you happen to spend more than your wages of $400 on equipment/supplies or do damage costing more than $400 then you made a bad deal and get no wages.

As I said before liberty for both is the employer imposing conditions for employment and you refusing to work for that employer because of those conditions.


Not referring to damages, assuming tasks were preformed to satisfaction. No special purchase equipment, damages, etc.

------------

Now since you can be denied work/fired for exercising rights.

Why is it that we cannot refuse to hire or fire for race, religion, gender, etc?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
If the tasks were performed to the employers satisfaction without any debits for equipment or damages then you should be paid the agreed upon $400. But bear in mind we are talking about what the employer pays you and not what the government takes from you in taxes. Those taxes have nothing to do with your employer and your complaint would be with the government.

A person is NOT denied work but is given the choice to either agree to the conditions of employment or to seek employment elsewhere where the person likes the conditions of employment. No one is denying anyone any work... just providing work according to the employee agreeing to the conditions of employment.

A person is NOT fired for exercising their rights. The person is fired for not adhering to the conditions of employment that they agreed to when they accepted employment.

The reason we cannot refuse to hire or fire due to race, religion, gender, etc., is because the government imposed laws that infringe upon the property owner's private property rights. Bear in mind that a business most certainly IS private property.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Look up "at-will employment." No need for a contract. No need for a breach. If they don't like your guns, your dope, the cut of your jib, whatever -- its "AMF" for you in most states. . . . That is unless you are a well-heeled executive with a "term contract of employment," or you work in a union shop with a due process right not to be terminated without "good cause."

Don't like it? Start your own business, become a plutocrat or organize your workplace.
Apparently you did not read what I wrote. Where did I ever suggest you put yourself in the position of being an employee or employer? And why would you suggest that only certain persons are eligible to contract, such as a well-heeled executives or a union workers. So what you are saying is all others are out of luck and have no worth? Or they are only worth what that employer offers to pay [strike]a slave[/strike] an employee. In other words, you accept the premise that you are either an employee or employer, and not a contractor.

What is great about this country is you get to believe whatever you want.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
Apparently you did not read what I wrote. Where did I ever suggest you put yourself in the position of being an employee or employer? And why would you suggest that only certain persons are eligible to contract, such as a well-heeled executives or a union workers. So what you are saying is all others are out of luck and have no worth? Or they are only worth what that employer offers to pay [strike]a slave[/strike] an employee. In other words, you accept the premise that you are either an employee or employer, and not a contractor.

What is great about this country is you get to believe whatever you want.

My friend, I am telling you what the law is, not political theory.

You technically have a contract of employment as an at will employee. It is terminable by either party for any reason, or for no reason at all, with a few rather clearly defined exceptions. Guns and dope are not among them.

You can work under a contract without an employment relationship. If there is no fixed term, your contract will likely also be considered "at will." If that is the case, the person you contract with can dismiss you just as unceremoneously. You will be self employed for workers comp, tax, wage and hours, liability, and other purposes. Most people have less rights and benefits that way, but if your services are in particular demand, and a good negotiator, it is possible that you may be able to make up for that. Most workers are not so blessed. In certain situations, the government will not allow a business to treat you as a contractor, only an employee. That is to protect you against getting ripped off and exploited by your employer.

Not judging -- that is the black letter law.
 
Top