On Technical Contracts of Employment and Why People Must Read Before Signing
As many readers are probably aware, especially if they've read this site for more than a couple of years, I uncovered pension fraud at a company I had worked for since early 2011 (I worked as a postdoc at the same time). Several colleagues were shocked to discover this pension fraud and it wasn't worth pursuing in court because the company would just declare bankruptcy and refuse to pay. So said the lawyers anyway; in this particular case, it also 'made sense', however unjust this may be (the perpetrator of the fraud already ran away to another country, like MElon and Mark Shuttleworth had done).
One thing that is widely recognised would have to be people signing papers without even reading them or bothering to understand the meanings. Not many people would take a work contract, for instance, then politely say, "I want to take a copy home before I sign so a lawyer or informed relative can check/look it over."
Contracts can be amended and individualised, as "one size fits all" leads to all sorts of problems (for workers and sometimes for employers, too). People aren't all the same.
In the context of technical work, which pretty much covers all the jobs I've done since starting University (almost 25 years ago), workers are entitled to breaks (for health's sake) and break allowance must be enforced. Many geeks tend not to take their break, saying they don't need them or are perhaps under pressure to meet deadlines (or deal with some queue of tickets, people, calls and so on). A right to a break not being exercised (by colleagues too) will gradually be lost - at worst, those who do in fact use their breaks will be frowned upon, stigmatised as "spoiled", "disloyal", even "selfish".
Aside from holiday and sick leave (to prevent burnout or infecting colleagues), there's also an entitlement - mostly in the technical workplace/scene - to switch off after working hours. Some employers try to be bend the rules even when there are strict laws and regulations at a national level. Many work contracts leave this "up in the air" - not explicitly specifying a "right to disconnect" (or whatever one chooses to call this; the brand "right to disconnect" is common here).
There tend to be sections in contracts about whistleblowers' protections. Those are important too. I've seen colleagues being compelled to lie to people just to cover up incompetence and/or corruption "higher up" in a company. There are all sorts of illegal "gags" and workers tend to look after themselves rather than the collective good (of society, not the corporations). As Lou Plummer put it this week, there's disloyalty towards colleagues and one might "suppose the rationale for that is simple. People depend upon their jobs and can be expected to look out for themselves first and foremost in relation to employment. Although they may seem friendly and personable, given the chance to earn more money or to look good to management, coworkers can almost be expected to chuck you under a bus. Being loyal only to one's self seems to be expected. I think that's a horrible way to live, and I struggled with it all my working life."
If you end up working in a company that compels you to cheat and lie (or manipulate others) just to 'survive' (i.e. keep receiving a paycheck), then it's probably time to look for another job and carefully check (or negotiate) the contact.
The wave of layoffs under MElon will worsen prospects of finding alternate/better employment; thus, more people will compromise principles, sign whatever paper is pushed their way (no questions asked), and even cover up misconduct (this typically means lying and/or destroying evidence, tampering with things in case of audits or subpoenas ignited by potent accusations). █