Studies On Double Salary Compensation System

Double salary compensation system was originally legislated to eliminate actual laborrelationship, make the clear rights and obligations of both employers and employees andestablish harmonious labor relations through the written labor contracts as far as possible.However, this system imposes the sign of written labor contract on the employers, ignoringthe employees’ assisting obligations. Moreover, the system violates the jurisprudence–nodamage and no compensation, which induces credit crisis in practice and intensifies the laborconflicts. Therefore amendments and improvements are badly-needed from the judicial andlegislation aspects.Besides the introduction this article is divided into five parts:The first part discusses the legislative purposes of the double salary compensationsystem. On the basis of investigations from three treatments of the actual labor relationship,the purposes of the system are recognized. It aims to eliminate actual labor relationship andmake the labor relations fixed in form of documents. By this way, the legitimate rights andinterests of laborers can be protected and harmonious labor relations can be established.The second part raises doubts about the rationality of the double salary compensationsystem. The legislation premises of the system are the employers who won’t sign the writtenlabor contract in practice and the employees whose disadvantages are obvious without thewritten labor contract. By the analysis of reasons why the employer won’t sign the writtenlabor contract and functions of the written labor contract, this part illustrates the unscientificpremise that without the written labor contract mainly due to the employers, the limitations ofthe written labor contract and weakening proof function in labor relation. So the legislationpremises of the system are questionable.The third part is the analysis of jurisprudential defects on the system. Punitivecompensation claims actors with subjective illegality or bad motives and victims with actualdamage. Nevertheless, the double salary compensation system does not require the employerswith subjective wrongfulness. As long as the fact that the employer won’t sign the writtenlabor contract exists, they should be responsible for double salary. At this time, labors’ actualdamages are not required. From this aspect, the double salary compensation system violatesthe fundamental principle of punitive compensation. The fourth part is the analysis of legal effects on the double salary compensation system.Since the implementation of the Labor Contract Law, the rate of signed labor contract hasbeen increasing, but the contract content is rough. Most of these contracts even don’t have therequisite items ruled in Labor Contract Law. The labor contracts are used as tools to preventlabors requiring double salary by employers, which intensify distrust between employers andemployees. Taking advantage of the employers’ vulnerability management, labors don’t signthe contract maliciously or delay signing, and then wait for an opportunity to advocate doublesalary. From the practice, the design of the Labor Contract Law is “good intentions to do badthings”. It not only failed to promote harmonious labor relations, but also strengthen theconflict to some degree.Focusing on the unreasonable sections of double salary compensation system, the lastpart is to propose some improvements, including judicial responses and improvements of thelegislation. From judicial practice aspect, this part discusses the local courts adopt effectiveactions to rectify the unreasonable sections of double salary compensation system. Forexample, if the labor won’t sign the contract for his own reason, he has no right to ask fordouble salary. In terms of legislation, it is proposed to cancel the double salary compensationsystem. The superstition of written labor contract should be destroyed and the non-writtenform of labor contract relationship should be admitted. At least the premises of the doublesalary compensation system should be limited.