What’s common between 4s & 6s and 0s & 1s

Although the Indian Players issue based on Ambush marketing, seems to be totally different from the OSD, there are some glaring issues of employment practices, that is common between them.

• Exploitation : In the Cricketer’s Issue- The players were bound to a contract period one month before and after the tournament. Extending this from 2000 to 2007, according to the GCC rules, a player will be deprived of advertising for his personal sponsors for a period of two and a half years. Similarly in the case of Open Source development, the code developed by the employees beyond their working hours was also to be claimed by the organisation. In both the cases, the organisations looked onto exploiting the IP of the employees,(of their brand in case of cricketers and code in case of OSS employees) beyond working hours.
• What do employer’s have to say.. ? When we look at it from the employer’s perspective, since they give them the training (in case of IT organisations) and help them to develop the brand(in case of cricketers), they feel entitled towards the IP developed with the help of it. But as Sir pointed out in class, because professors give students, the input for the students to help them win competitions, they cannot claim a part of the prize money. Similarly I feel its unfair on the part of the organisation to try claim the work done by the employees beyond the working hours.
• Fair Deal? : In the case of cricketers, the ICC could have imposed a ban only for the period they played, and in the case of OSS, the company can claim the software developed only during the working hours. But how can they claim the work done by the employees beyond the time for which they are paid. In case, if some employee is passionate towards music and develops an album, can the company claim it as its own? As absurd as it sounds, so is claiming the OSS developed by employees beyond working hours.
• Inhumanity: As described in the nature of exchange, time is seen as a commodity. It seems that organisations forget that employees are human beings, and treat them more as machines. The ICC was not even bothered about the legal issues that the players might face with the existing contracts. In the other case also, the employers want to encash the passion of OSD of the employees and the employees are not even entitled to a legal royalty and recognition if the product clicks.

The bargaining power of the employees varies depending on their position. Atleast, in case of cricketers, they did have a say and have media exposure, to explain their plea. But it may not be the case of normal employees. Due to financial constraints, they might have to accept the contract as such, although an unfair deal. Hence in this competitive environment, it becomes more necessary for the employees to develop niche skills to increase their bargaining power and modify contracts so that it suits them.

Above all, I feel organisations should take a more humane stand in developing employment contracts. Today, majority of the organisations are based on knowledge workers and it becomes all the more imperative to provide conducive work environments, which foster creativity and innovation without binding the employees. Organisations should realise that the passion and mental health of the employees are also essential inputs to their profits.