Reflection On The Meaning Of Wage In The Theory Of Valence

The concept of free wages constructed by the theory of valence embodies the value of modern liberalistic democratic industrial society, but it is not impeccable.

As far as methodology is concerned, the concept of abstract external system of conceptialism is rather hypothetical in theory or in practice.

The core of the establishment of an abstract concept, the elements of constructive fact, usually do not have an objective and necessary connotation. It requires the subjective activities such as human social experience, social concept evaluation or legal interpretation.

In the application of law, the proportion of strict meaning is quite small.

As a highly abstract conceptual element, "labor consideration" is very limited in the meaning and meaning of wage law and regulation.

Taking the "labor standard law" in Taiwan as an example, it limits the scope of wages to a very narrow scope. As long as we identify the source of wages from the essential characteristics of labor relations, we suddenly believe that the reason is not enough:

First, the purpose of termination is labor relations.

Taiwan scholars believe that "the labor conditions are based on the basis of the contract established by the two parties and have the same value relationship. Therefore, the pension and pfer fees obtained from the termination of the labor relations are not within the scope of wages".

However, in the light of fact, the laborers pay labor before retiring, and the social payment and compensatory payment after the termination of labor relations are rooted in the former labor payment, which is a kind of reward for their labor. Otherwise, such payment should be regarded as a gift to laborers.

In other words, if there is no job, how can he drop out? If he has not paid labor, how can he get such income? Therefore, scholars in Taiwan emphasize that wages are the consideration of on-the-job labor, which is actually a constriction of the "labor consideration".

As mentioned earlier, wages in Japan's Labor Standards Act include pensions and severance payments, while the mainland's legal provisions are basically in line with the "Labor Standards Law" in Taiwan.

Next is the bonus of non recurrent payment.

In the Taiwan area, the implementation rules of the Labor Standards Act (promulgated in February 25, 1985) exclude the incentive bonus from non recurrent payments to the tenth salary range. However, both mainland and Japanese legislation have included such income in wages.

Japanese scholars believe that bonus has multiple implications. First, it is a supplement to basic wages and a reward for laboring laborers. It aims at competitive evaluation of the labor of different workers, so it has the nature of encouragement.

Accordingly, the bonus is a reward for the outstanding workers, not an extra payment which is irrelevant to labor.

Although the relevant legislation in our country puts bonuses in the category of wages, there is still a case which is contrary to the legislation in our judicial practice.

Finally, it is arbitrary benefit payment.

Most scholars in Japan and Taiwan hold negative opinions about the payment of arbitrary benefits, such as he Jin, Li Jin, Dian Ji, Jin Jie Jin and so on.

However, some scholars believe that the judgement of the nature of grace benefits should be based on objective facts, such as the labor contract or the condition of express payment under collective agreement, which is the obligation of contract and the nature of loss of grace is also regarded as wages.

It is not a contract based obligation that negates the nature of giving, rather it is a distortion of grace to habitus in labor relations.

It attempts to use a written contract to give grace to the action in a normative way, but it can not explain the grace given to the written evidence and how to distinguish it from the written evidence. What is the fairness?

It is difficult to reconcile contradictions.

About salary category

All the disputes in practice can be attributed to the methodological defects of abstract concept construction: complex wage phenomena, only a very limited part can absorb the wage concept in labor law through "labor consideration".

In a word, it can be regarded as the object of labor contract and the object of labor supervision, which is dwarfed by the wage range of labor disputes and the complexity of laborers' income in labor relations, which will damage the protection function of labor law to the wage rights and interests of laborers.

At the same time, the achievements of conceptual conceptions are often based on practical consequences.

The divergence of legislation in the wage category and the entanglement of the legal profession community reflect the legal technical defects of abstract concepts.

Conceptions of freedom

The concept is not only full of loopholes, but also fails to express clearly the concept of wage in the labor law system.

Labor relations adjusted by labor law can be divided into collective labor relations and individual labor relations according to the main body.

In the collective labor relations law, workers' right to unite, collective disputes and collective bargaining is essentially a laborer's power to check and balance the employer, rather than a simple creditor's right.

It is hard to see the relevance of wage as the object of creditor's rights and the law of collective labor relations from the perspective of the theory of consideration, which makes the concept of meaning broken down in the legal system and loses the function of constructing the external legal system.

It is no wonder that Japanese scholars divide wage in labor law into wage in the labor standard law and collective labor relations law, and do not intend to construct a wage concept that can integrate the whole labor law system.

From the perspective of epistemology, the understanding of the nature of wages by classical liberal economics is the root of the ill conceived concept of wages.

Marx once pointed out sharply that "labor is the entity and intrinsic measure of value, but it has no value in itself".

He further refutes "wage is the price of labor": because the value of goods is determined by the amount of labor that produces the goods. If labor itself is valuable, then there will be a "synonymous" logical error of "the value of commodity is determined by its value".

The so-called labor value in classical political economics is actually the value of labor force.

Therefore, the concept of free wages mistakenly confuses the labor force with its function - labor in epistemology, and it is faced with various difficulties because of the legal conception of its concept which can not measure the value of labor.

Marx clearly pointed out that wage is the monetary manifestation of labor value, and it is determined by labor time.

The value of all products created by labor is divided into three parts under the capitalist legal relationship, namely profit, land rent and wages. The former two are part of the value created by labor, but they do not belong to the laborers, but they are attributable to the capitalists and the landowners as surplus value.

Wages are only part of the labor generated by the laborers, not all.

Therefore, wages and labor can not exist at the same time.

After reviewing the epistemology of the concept of free wages from the standpoint of Marx doctrine, the idea of wage contract is constrained by the "labor consideration" - the dilemma faced by this false proposition.