Does the joint and several liability guarantee have legal effect when the company recruits?

This question is simple and not legally binding.

In fact, there is no need to analyze it from the labor law

As a way to guarantee debt, guarantee is a subordinate property to contract and principal creditor's rights. When the master contract is invalid, the slave contract will also be invalid-this is called subordination. Where does the validity of the contract come from if the principal creditor's rights never occur?

Now your friend's company's principal creditor's right to your friend-the damage to the company has not happened, so what principal creditor's right is guaranteed by the guarantee contract?

If your friend causes losses to the company, the guarantee made later will be effective and meaningful for discussion.

China does not protect "contingent claims" that are uncertain whether they will actually occur. This kind of joint and several liability guarantee has no legal significance.

However, if after the damage, the company calls relatives and friends and says that according to the previous joint and several liability guarantee, you have to make a guarantee commitment. At this time, if a guarantee contract is signed, it will be effective. Be careful.

Reply to the ectopic cloud:

I don't know what you are talking about. Labor law and civil law do not belong to the same department, but it is not impossible to discuss them together. Many provisions in the labor law reflect the general principles of civil law. Where there are provisions in the Labor Law, the provisions of the Labor Law shall apply; if there are no provisions, the provisions of the General Principles of the Civil Law shall apply.

Effective and effective are really two different concepts, but what I said is actually discussing whether it is effective or not, but you just don't understand it yourself. Of course, the effectiveness of creditor's rights guarantee occurs after the creditor's rights cannot be realized, but the premise of this occurrence is that there is already a "definite" and "principal creditor's rights", and then this "definite" creditor's rights are guaranteed. For the creditor's rights that are not damaged or the damage is uncertain, the guarantee is invalid from the beginning because the principal creditor's rights do not exist or are uncertain. The "contingent creditor's rights" that China is uncertain about in the future cannot be guaranteed by any guarantee (insurance is auction and guarantee are two concepts; The situation here is not the biggest guarantee. Of course, there is no need to discuss whether the guarantee itself is invalid.

The current situation is that the labor law does not stipulate the People's Insurance Law, so what is wrong with my application of the general principles of the civil law, especially the theoretical and legal provisions of the guarantee law? Because if I say that the protection of people is prohibited according to the "legislative spirit" of the labor law, but this "legislative spirit" is interpreted by me according to the document, this interpretation is not a legislative interpretation, nor a judicial interpretation, and it has no absolute effect; The other party can also explain that "the law is not prohibited." Since the labor law does not prohibit this kind of insurance, then the parties can make their own decisions, which makes the problem more complicated. Therefore, instead of "pushing back" the prohibition of property insurance from the perspective of labor law, it is better to be straightforward from the perspective that the principal creditor's rights have not yet occurred and the guarantee is unsecured. This is my opinion. Of course, I'm not saying that the views on the second and third floors must be wrong. I just want to find a way from another angle.