Free The Common Law of Labor Relations Essay Sample
Buy Cheap The Common Law of Labor Relations Essay
The theory of imagined law is lies on a presetting of what would come in the future or what might have happened before the present in the field of law. It can also be the work of common sense where authors would not engage the readers to facts but to theories they imagine to be of essence to the setting of their arguments. The author of the Common law of Labor Relations (redux) refers to the Journal of Law authored by Epstein in arguing out the setting of the events. The journal refers to the rules of employment and the precise form of punishment violators were subjected to. The author in his writing argues that the setting should be referred to ‘late’ nineteenth century. This is due to the fact that Epstein set used the general term ‘nineteenth century’ and according to law of Labor during that time, the author feels that Epstein was referring to late nineteenth century.
The evidence which the author uses to imply that Epstein made mistake in highlighting incorrect date lies on the contents of the journal. It is written in the journal that in nineteenth century, contacts had to be honored fully; employers and employees had to assume the master-slave relationship; and it was within the law that an employer would punish an employee without trial. All these are known to have been the acts of the period before mid nineteenth century upon which some major changes took place in the law of labor.
The author of the Common Law of Labor Relations (redux) argues that the Journal of Law by Epstein refers to events that took place after the above named contents had been done away with. The employer and the employee according to Epstein were supposed to remain on the contract for as long as the contract depicted. Infringement of the contract by the employee allowed the employer freedom to punish the employee as he pleased. Given the assumption of master-slave relationship between the two, the master was allowed to shoot the slave if he ran away to avoid whipping. According to the author of Common Law of Labor Relations (redux); this was only allowed in the early nineteenth century. The journal of Law of Labor by Epstein argues in accordance to what happened after the earlier was amended.
So how could the compiler of critiquewriting judge the work of a philosopher who had first hand of what he was writing about? This is the point where I go back to the opening remark where I discussed the role of imagined law. Epstein might have been relating to the law of labor in accordance to what he thought to be the future of the same law. The reverse is correct in that he could have been writing about the present by referring to what he thought may have happened. The conflict of timing in this tends to bring out the sense that the law according to Epstein is wrong. Amendments to a law whose effects could be seen or accounted for: why would the timing be a factor of consideration. After amendments, the employer-employee relationship remained master-slave but contract s could be terminated by either of them the penalty of null compensation of the work done already. Contracts, if followed to the latter allowed for the handshake packages.
Assuming that ‘late’ was added prior to nineteenth century in Epstein’s journal of law, how would the outcome of the amendment of the law been different. If the author of Common Law of Labor Relations (redux) is right about mistakes made in the time frame of the journal, what is the general point he would like law enforcers to take into account before giving their verdicts?