6 ms·

Doesn't this require a signature? If so, depending on the life circumstances, couldn't this be perceived as signing a contract under duress?

ori_b 11y ago
If that's the case, wouldn't that imply that a huge class of transactions for basic life necessities -- rent, most bills, etc -- be under duress as well? That seems like a useless and counterproductive interpretation to me.
- kd0amg 11y ago
  "Under duress" seems to be a somewhat fuzzy classification, but most of these necessities have either very low costs for switching to another counterparty (if I don't like one grocer's offer, there are plenty of others around I can go to instead on the spot) or some limitation on what they can require (e.g., no kicking a tenant out without a month's notice). At-will employment seems to be the odd one out here, in that switching to a new job normally takes quite a bit of time and hassle.
jmount 11y ago
(I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice or even my full opinion) I think that is the point. Terminating at-will employment isn't considered a threat/duress. One can't be for at will employment and against allowing employers to add new conditions to continue employment, because as the original commenter said that is the concept. Now a completely separate issue is if you are for at will employment. And like so many things it is important to use what it is defined to be (an not just the name) to make your judgement. Similar issue: "right to work states" (gotta decide that one again on what the laws say, not the title).
- Retric 11y ago
  IANAL, but it might qualify if it where given without warning. As in sign this in 5 minutes or walk out the door. Though adding these out and giving someone a few days to sign or simply adding an effective date in the future would not qualify as duress. Case in point people in some states are given a day or two to back out of a new car sale presumably due to high pressure tactics used at dealerships.
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    (IANAL) I guess the idea is, how does the fact that the employer can walk up to you at any point regardless and say "walk out the door" interplay with other facts and laws? Are you just constantly under duress? I would assume not, since you also have the mirrored right to just walk out the door of your own volition at any point. I can see logic the in interpretation that this arrangement basically results in the constant ability to reconsider the employment agreement: "If you don't like it, you can leave at that very moment. Otherwise, you are bound to it."
    - hwstar 11y ago
      I think you have touched on the problem with At-will employment in general. Yes, at some callous employers you could face a "culture of fear". You won't be constantly under duress, but you could be miserable most of the time. The problem as I see it is that the power of At-will employment rests mostly with the employer. It is asymmetrical. Most people could not afford to lose their job without serious financial difficulties, and if they disagree with some new policy in principal, then the only choice is to resign, be forced out, or continue working under the new policy. Most employees will never be in a situation where they can say "Screw you, I'm not signing that". There's too much at stake. There are multiple reasons for this: The job they hold does not pay them enough to save and emergency fund. They don't practice good financial judgement. They are ignorant of the risks of at-will employment. They are in their comfort zone and don't want to push back. They signed a non-compete agreement.
      - tsotha 11y ago
        >The problem as I see it is that the power of At-will employment rests mostly with the employer. It is asymmetrical. Most people could not afford to lose their job without serious financial difficulties... By the same token most employers can't afford to have key people walk out the door without serious financial difficulties. Anyone who thinks this is asymmetrical has never been tasked with making sure projects are staffed. Most technical people have left an employer in the lurch at some point.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Contract law is going to become far more complicated if 'yes means yes' and 'enthusiastic consent' ideas are ever applied to it.

ori_b 11y ago

If that's the case, wouldn't that imply that a huge class of transactions for basic life necessities -- rent, most bills, etc -- be under duress as well? That seems like a useless and counterproductive interpretation to me.

kd0amg 11y ago
"Under duress" seems to be a somewhat fuzzy classification, but most of these necessities have either very low costs for switching to another counterparty (if I don't like one grocer's offer, there are plenty of others around I can go to instead on the spot) or some limitation on what they can require (e.g., no kicking a tenant out without a month's notice). At-will employment seems to be the odd one out here, in that switching to a new job normally takes quite a bit of time and hassle.

jmount 11y ago

(I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice or even my full opinion) I think that is the point. Terminating at-will employment isn't considered a threat/duress. One can't be for at will employment and against allowing employers to add new conditions to continue employment, because as the original commenter said that is the concept. Now a completely separate issue is if you are for at will employment. And like so many things it is important to use what it is defined to be (an not just the name) to make your judgement. Similar issue: "right to work states" (gotta decide that one again on what the laws say, not the title).

Retric 11y ago
IANAL, but it might qualify if it where given without warning. As in sign this in 5 minutes or walk out the door. Though adding these out and giving someone a few days to sign or simply adding an effective date in the future would not qualify as duress. Case in point people in some states are given a day or two to back out of a new car sale presumably due to high pressure tactics used at dealerships.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  (IANAL) I guess the idea is, how does the fact that the employer can walk up to you at any point regardless and say "walk out the door" interplay with other facts and laws? Are you just constantly under duress? I would assume not, since you also have the mirrored right to just walk out the door of your own volition at any point. I can see logic the in interpretation that this arrangement basically results in the constant ability to reconsider the employment agreement: "If you don't like it, you can leave at that very moment. Otherwise, you are bound to it."
  - hwstar 11y ago
    I think you have touched on the problem with At-will employment in general. Yes, at some callous employers you could face a "culture of fear". You won't be constantly under duress, but you could be miserable most of the time. The problem as I see it is that the power of At-will employment rests mostly with the employer. It is asymmetrical. Most people could not afford to lose their job without serious financial difficulties, and if they disagree with some new policy in principal, then the only choice is to resign, be forced out, or continue working under the new policy. Most employees will never be in a situation where they can say "Screw you, I'm not signing that". There's too much at stake. There are multiple reasons for this: The job they hold does not pay them enough to save and emergency fund. They don't practice good financial judgement. They are ignorant of the risks of at-will employment. They are in their comfort zone and don't want to push back. They signed a non-compete agreement.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      >The problem as I see it is that the power of At-will employment rests mostly with the employer. It is asymmetrical. Most people could not afford to lose their job without serious financial difficulties... By the same token most employers can't afford to have key people walk out the door without serious financial difficulties. Anyone who thinks this is asymmetrical has never been tasked with making sure projects are staffed. Most technical people have left an employer in the lurch at some point.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

Contract law is going to become far more complicated if 'yes means yes' and 'enthusiastic consent' ideas are ever applied to it.