Why Employment Laws Should Not Override Contracts Between Employers And Employees

Introduction

A proposed change in contract law yields discussions as to why employment laws should possibly override contracts between employers and employees. The premise of this argument is the fact that employees lack bargaining power and resources that can help them fully secure their interests through contracts. There is need to abandon the existing precedent in courts where employment agreements and collective bargaining agreements override major sources of the employment law. If implemented, organizations will be keen to align all the employment contracts with the existing laws and avoid grievances and court cases that are brought up by disgruntled employees. Billions of dollars, every year, are lost due to inconsistencies in the pure nature of industrial relations in the country. Industrial relation disputes have increasingly become a significant issue for business organizations. According to Adams (2017), about 10% of all registered business entities in America have at least one case related to

This means that if the contract, whether verbal or written, is clear and concise, all the parties are required to abide by it (Yamada, 2015). However, there are many other issues lead to legal suits between the employer and the employee. Matters such as health benefits, the process of addressing employee grievances, sick leave, vacation, employee behavior after terminating the contract, overtime compensation, discrimination, representation of employees, and industrial relations are the most common. Legal suits also involve concerns as they relate to the protection of data and employee privacy. Many of these issues are handled collectively by the employees, but there is no guarantee that the demands of every employee are met through collective bargaining. Nonetheless, once worker sign agreements with the employers, they become binding to each employee (Fossum,