Discussion Forum I need someone to complete a discussion question for me. The discussion question requires 3 short paragraphs in total. This question is based on unit 3 of the course. I have attached the course lessons for unit 3 below. Please review unit 3 to get an idea of the employment law terminology. Discussion Question: As we see in Unit 3, under common law, employees owe their employers significantly more obligations than employers owe employees. Why do you think common law has evolved in this fashion? Do you consider it fair? Should employers have more implied obligations to their employees under common law, or does statute law properly address this inequity? **Individual must ensure they use terminology from unit 3** Here are some example answers submitted by a couple of the students: Student #1 I agree that employees owe their employers more obligations than employers owe employees. This is reflected through the evolution of the common law. Judges use precedent law by basing their current decisions on what previous courts have decided. Overtime this has led to a watered down form of the master-servant relationship. Historically, employers had all the control and employees had no rights. Over time developments have been made to balance out power, but the old shadows of the law still exist. I dont consider this fair. When defining the employment relationship it is assumed that the employers and employees have equal bargaining power. However, employees are at a disadvantage as they may not be familiar with the law/ terms used and they have to negotiate one on one. This has led to employees having obligations that they must even uphold outside of working hours. A duty to fidelity is an employees obligation to protect and enhance an employers reputation at all times. This must be done even though an employer isnt even required legally to act in good faith (Flisinger, 2010). I do believe that employers should have more implied obligations to their employees under the common law. Statue law allows only for minimum standards and regulations to be put in place. If employers can get away with doing the minimum for their employees and the employees are expected to act in the best efforts all the time the balance of power will always favour the employer. In order to achieve some form of equality common law needs to start placing more implied obligations on the employer. Reference Filsinger, K. (2010) Employment Law for Business and Human resources Professionals. (2nd ed). Toronto, ON. Edmond Montgomery Publications Ltd. Student #2 Employees do owe employers more obligations than employers owe employees. I believe this is the nature of the employee-employer relationship or master-servant relationship. Employers are paying their employees for a service and therefore can apply the terms and conditions in which they see fit. Employees sign an employment contract agreeing to those terms and therefore hands the employer the upper hand and right to demand higher obligations from the employee. This is the nature of the workforce these days as competition is so high and jobs are so few. I believe common law has evolved in this fashion to support the employers because there are so many statute laws supporting employees that employers are fighting back and creating their own common law to create precedents to support their interests. I do believe this is fair given the many laws supporting employees. Not all cases are negligent on the employer and both sides need to be protected. I do believe that statute law properly addresses the inequality and in cases where it doesn't, employees can take legal action and form common law precedents of their own.

Discussion Forum

I need someone to complete a discussion question for me. The discussion question requires 3 short paragraphs in total. This question is based on unit 3 of the course. I have attached the course lessons for unit 3 below. Please review unit 3 to get an idea of the employment law terminology.

Discussion Question:

As we see in Unit 3, under common law, employees owe their employers significantly more obligations than employers owe employees. Why do you think common law has evolved in this fashion? Do you consider it fair? Should employers have more implied obligations to their employees under common law, or does statute law properly address this inequity?

**Individual must ensure they use terminology from unit 3**

Here are some example answers submitted by a couple of the students:

Student #1
I agree that employees owe their employers more obligations than employers owe employees. This is reflected through the evolution of the common law. Judges use precedent law by basing their current decisions on what previous courts have decided. Overtime this has led to a watered down form of the master-servant relationship. Historically, employers had all the control and employees had no rights. Over time developments have been made to balance out power, but the old shadows of the law still exist.
I dont consider this fair. When defining the employment relationship it is assumed that the employers and employees have equal bargaining power. However, employees are at a disadvantage as they may not be familiar with the law/ terms used and they have to negotiate one on one. This has led to employees having obligations that they must even uphold outside of working hours. A duty to fidelity is an employees obligation to protect and enhance an employers reputation at all times. This must be done even though an employer isnt even required legally to act in good faith (Flisinger, 2010).
I do believe that employers should have more implied obligations to their employees under the common law. Statue law allows only for minimum standards and regulations to be put in place. If employers can get away with doing the minimum for their employees and the employees are expected to act in the best efforts all the time the balance of power will always favour the employer. In order to achieve some form of equality common law needs to start placing more implied obligations on the employer.

Reference
Filsinger, K. (2010) Employment Law for Business and Human resources Professionals. (2nd ed). Toronto, ON. Edmond Montgomery Publications Ltd.

Student #2
Employees do owe employers more obligations than employers owe employees. I believe this is the nature of the employee-employer relationship or master-servant relationship. Employers are paying their employees for a service and therefore can apply the terms and conditions in which they see fit. Employees sign an employment contract agreeing to those terms and therefore hands the employer the upper hand and right to demand higher obligations from the employee. This is the nature of the workforce these days as competition is so high and jobs are so few.
I believe common law has evolved in this fashion to support the employers because there are so many statute laws supporting employees that employers are fighting back and creating their own common law to create precedents to support their interests. I do believe this is fair given the many laws supporting employees. Not all cases are negligent on the employer and both sides need to be protected.
I do believe that statute law properly addresses the inequality and in cases where it doesn't, employees can take legal action and form common law precedents of their own.