|
The key difference between an employee and an indentured servant is the indentured servant can be forced by the government to work according to the terms of his agreement. If the answer is no, then how is an indentured servant different than a soldier who is not allowed to leave the military prior to the end of his term of service?
showing 2 of 3
show all
|
My understanding is that a soldier is not forced to work, but rather is penalized, in some cases criminally, for not working.
If an employee abandons his post and this causes deaths, that is, or at least should be, a criminal matter in addition to a breach of contract. I don't think that makes the employee an indentured servant.
From the Wikipedia article, it seems that indentured servitude is a voluntary agreement, generally a way of gaining travel and paying for it with future labor. Considering the long-term value of travel to a new country, it sounds like a great idea to me.
You haven't addressed whether or not "the indentured servant can be forced by the government to work according to the terms of his agreement".
Another point, which "Humbug" didn't mention, but is in the Wikipedia article, is that an indentured servant could legally be subjected to physical punishment by his/her master.
I believe we touched on these issues before, when discussing contracts regarding dueling, but I can't find it.