Who gets to "decide"???

“Employment Contract”, any person who has a work experience knows what it is and many have signed it. But can we ask how many have actually read it and understood it. This point has already been discussed in previous posts and also in class, but I just want to mention it here that we are still very much held in the grips of the employment contract. By making us sign the contract they indirectly hold the rights to anything we do, which might be of importance to them may be not today. But today the main point of contention is IPR and when it comes to IPR, employers really try hard not to let their employees work with their competitors. Sometimes it makes sense but most of the time it creates a barrier for the future growth of the employee. It also depends on the type of the organization and the type of work done. Let’s say if one is baking pizzas at Pizza-Hut and he is asked to sign a non-compete clause. No court will enforce it if he decides to bake pizzas for higher pay at Domino’s across the street because no legitimate business interest is at stake. But, a man working as an employee in the “R & D” division of Microsoft or Apple is more vulnerable to the consequences of the masked clauses in the contract than a person working in Pizza Hut baking pizzas.

But the question that really bogs us down is “do we really have the power to negotiate the clauses mentioned in the contract”? If I join an organization today as a fresher I wouldn’t be having much of a bargaining power. If I start bargaining I might be shown the door. But, may be after some years with work experience and some credible work to boast of, I might be able to negotiate my job offer. Similar is the case with Indian cricket team. With a nation of billion cricket crazy fans behind them and the most talented and experienced players in the team they were able to stand against. Also sponsors knew that the maximum revenues are earned from the Asian region, mostly from the Indian sub-continent, and if India doesn’t play then they would face huge losses. The ICC was well aware of this fact, so they used a stance which played on the sentiments of the players. ICC Chief Executive Malcolm Speed said in a press release“If a player finds that, through his own actions, he has put his commercial interests ahead of his ability to play for his country, he needs to decide what is more important to him -- the money, or playing for his country.”

It’s a classic Catch-22: Employers have a right to protect their business interests, but they can’t prohibit anyone from working.

Now it depends on the employees how well they can stand for their rights, and how judiciously they make their decisions, because ultimately it is a single person against the organization. In case of the Indian team they could stand against it because they stood as a team. Also ICC owned the events not the players.