3 ms·

The choice to sign up for the contract isn't really a choice. It's the de facto standard in many kinds of jobs, people are essentially forced into it like peopl

by wfo 11y ago

The choice to sign up for the contract isn't really a choice. It's the de facto standard in many kinds of jobs, people are essentially forced into it like people are forced to give their employer their IP, sign a noncompete, etc. The alternative is to not have a job, which isn't an alternative for most. The only way to fight back against it is to regulate it back into the stone age where it belongs. edit: in fact I think we need a kind of regulation that prohibits firings/requirements based on things which aren't explicitly necessarily to complete the tasks associated with a job -- to prevent the current moral disaster that is employer ownership of their employees' private lives as well as bowing to social media witch hunts against anyone who dares utter a sentence which contradicts the social justice orthodoxy which are becoming more and more prevalent.

zer00eyz 11y ago
I agree with you that contracts are "required" in a lot of situations. "I also used to write about marriage law policy, encouraging traditional marriage for the good of children. My institution has a morality clause in all contracts." In this case her job was to uphold the institution that she was violating. She was part of supporting the "moral disaster".
- wfo 11y ago
  Didn't catch that in my first read-through; thanks I wouldn't have noticed it. That adds an interesting dynamic to the whole issue in this case, though I think upon reflection it doesn't really change my opinion of the matter. For me it's about the right to keep your personal life seperate from your employability. It's essentially a privacy issue; we can't guarantee our private affairs can be actually kept secret (people will get doxed, often out of spite) but we could mitigate the damage it causes by preventing people in power from acting on it. This goes for law enforcement too, and is actually enshrined in law though there are loopholes.

by wfo 11y ago

zer00eyz 11y ago

I agree with you that contracts are "required" in a lot of situations. "I also used to write about marriage law policy, encouraging traditional marriage for the good of children. My institution has a morality clause in all contracts." In this case her job was to uphold the institution that she was violating. She was part of supporting the "moral disaster".

wfo 11y ago
Didn't catch that in my first read-through; thanks I wouldn't have noticed it. That adds an interesting dynamic to the whole issue in this case, though I think upon reflection it doesn't really change my opinion of the matter. For me it's about the right to keep your personal life seperate from your employability. It's essentially a privacy issue; we can't guarantee our private affairs can be actually kept secret (people will get doxed, often out of spite) but we could mitigate the damage it causes by preventing people in power from acting on it. This goes for law enforcement too, and is actually enshrined in law though there are loopholes.