An employment contract should clearly define all the conditions of the employment relationship. The most common elements of an employment contract are: in the opinion of some lawyers, the employment contract generally refers to a relationship between economic dependence and social subordination. According to Sir Otto Kahn-Freund, the controversial labour law expert, “The relationship between an employer and a lone worker is typically a relationship between a leader and a man who is not a master of power. In its birth, it is an act of submission, in its action it is a condition of subordination, even if submission and submission can be concealed by the indispensable cowardice of the legal spirit called the “employment contract”. The main concern of labour law was, and… will always be a counter-power to counter the inequality of bargaining power inherent in the working relationship and inherent. [8] An employment contract is generally defined in such a way that it is considered a “service contract.” [1] A service contract historically differs from a service contract whose term has been changed to include the dividing line between an “employee” and an “independent”. The purpose of the demarcation line is to allocate rights to certain types of people working for others. This could be the right to the minimum wage, leave pay, sick leave, fair dismissal,[2] a written declaration of the contract, the right to organize in a union, etc. It is assumed that the self-employed should be able to take care of their own affairs and therefore should not be obliged for others to take care of those rights.

Anarchosyndicallists and other socialists who criticize wage slavery,. B, for example, David Ellerman and Carole Pateman argue that the employment contract is a legal fiction, because it legally recognizes man as mere tools or contributions by abdicating responsibility and self-determination, which critics consider inalienable. Ellerman states that “[d] he becomes a legal worker, from a co-responsible partner, to a single input supplier who assumes no legal responsibility for input expenses or productions produced [revenue, profits] of the employer.” [5] Such contracts are by nature invalidated “because the person remains de facto a fully capital adult person, with only the contractual role of a non-person” because it is impossible to physically delegate self-determination. [6] As Pateman argues, in Roman law, the corresponding dichotomy was between locatio conductio operarum (employment contract) and locatio conductio operis (service contract). [3] [4] Terminology is made difficult by the use of many other types of contracts involving one person working for another. Instead of being considered a “worker,” the person could be considered a “worker” (which could mean less protection of work) or a “work relationship” (which could mean protection somewhere in between) or a “professional” or a “salaried contractor,” etc.