6 ms·

It's not about a contract, it's about their rights. Rights can't be signed away by just clicking "Accept".

SilasX 11y ago
Obviously, some rights can. Every transaction involves signing away a right. (A simple trade of money for goods involves one party signing away their rights to the money and the other to the goods.) Why are these particular rights deservedly unwaivable? And why is the remedy "work and sue" rather then "stop doing it" or "don't take the offer"? Can someone articulate the worldmodel that leads to this distinction?
- throwaway2048 11y ago
  The rights are unwaivable because the power ballance in an employee/employer relationship is almost without exception massively tilted in the favour of the employer. If these rights could be waived, you can be certain that virtually every single employment contract would waive them. Except perhaps in the case of unionized workshops, where the employers and employees can negotiate on actual equal terms.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    >The rights are unwaivable because the power ballance in an employee/employer relationship is almost without exception massively tilted in the favour of the employer. Appealing to a power imbalance as invalidating any rights waiver, would likewise prove that workers shouldn't be able to transact with employers at all. As before, all transactions are going to involve giving up some rights.
    - throwaway2048 11y ago
      that really does not follow at all, unless you make the assumption that all rights are equally important, which is nonsense. Giving up my "right" to unemployed free time is a lot less important than giving up my right to not be sold into slavery.
      - SilasX 11y ago
        It would still involve an articulation and justification of the distinction between waivable and unwaivable rights, which you didn't previously provide. Could you help improve my worldmodel to the point that it contains this distinction?
        throwaway2048 11y ago
        its a vast topic by itself, but its usually based around the idea that violating unwaivable rights would be grossly unfair or abusive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability is a closely related concept. Unfortunately for the people that like to think about the law in terms of hard logical equation evaluations, this is one area that is quite "fuzzy", simply because of the massive amount of circumstance surronding individual issues.
    - aikah 11y ago
      > As before, all transactions are going to involve giving up some rights. But no transaction involves giving up the right to contest the nature of the transaction and its lawfulness. I could sign a contract saying I have to work 100 hours a week tomorrow it wouldn't matter, that's illegal. If my employer fires me for not working 100 hours a week effectively well, too bad, he's going to bleed a lot of money in a court of law, because what he made me sign was illegal at first place. A contract isn't a holy paper that superseeds the law.
      - SilasX 11y ago
        >But no transaction involves giving up the right to contest the nature of the transaction and its lawfulness. Is that the right Uber drivers were force to give up? I can't tell what this is referring to.
- jackgavigan 11y ago
  You're still confusing a contract with rights. Contracts are about an exchange of obligations but they don't override one's rights. Shylock v Antonio does not set a precedent. You can give up certain rights under certain circumstances. For example, a compromise agreement involves giving up certain rights under employment law in exchange for money. However, you must receive advice from a suitably qualified and independent adviser, or the compromise agreement is invalid - see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/203 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/203 ObIANAL
  - SilasX 11y ago
    Every taking on of an obligation is equivalently expressible as the waiver of a right. As before, trading $1 for an apple can be expressed as "Alice waives the right to the apple and Bob te right to the $1." It would make no sense to say "Alice's rights are being violated because she was denied use of her apple!" What I think is happening is that you're only calling some rights waivers as rights waivers, which makes it hard to isolate which transactions you find unacceptable and why. Could you maybe flesh that out? I've tried to get satisfactory answers on this when it comes up, but to no avail.
    - jackgavigan 11y ago
      UK employment law doesn't grant anyone rights to apples.
      - SilasX 11y ago
        If you buy apples, UK law recognizes you as having a right to those apples. If you then trade the rights to those apples away, you don't get a bunch of judges tut-tutting the person who received them, lecturing him about how you have the right to those apples. If you have a right, you should be able to trade that right. A right you cannot trade should more properly be called an obligation. If there are good reasons not to allow trading away a right, you should articulate those reasons, as I asked originally. It is not sufficient to simply cite their existence.

Obviously, some rights can. Every transaction involves signing away a right. (A simple trade of money for goods involves one party signing away their rights to the money and the other to the goods.) Why are these particular rights deservedly unwaivable? And why is the remedy "work and sue" rather then "stop doing it" or "don't take the offer"? Can someone articulate the worldmodel that leads to this distinction?

throwaway2048 11y ago
The rights are unwaivable because the power ballance in an employee/employer relationship is almost without exception massively tilted in the favour of the employer. If these rights could be waived, you can be certain that virtually every single employment contract would waive them. Except perhaps in the case of unionized workshops, where the employers and employees can negotiate on actual equal terms.
- SilasX 11y ago
  >The rights are unwaivable because the power ballance in an employee/employer relationship is almost without exception massively tilted in the favour of the employer. Appealing to a power imbalance as invalidating any rights waiver, would likewise prove that workers shouldn't be able to transact with employers at all. As before, all transactions are going to involve giving up some rights.
  - throwaway2048 11y ago
    that really does not follow at all, unless you make the assumption that all rights are equally important, which is nonsense. Giving up my "right" to unemployed free time is a lot less important than giving up my right to not be sold into slavery.
    - SilasX 11y ago
      It would still involve an articulation and justification of the distinction between waivable and unwaivable rights, which you didn't previously provide. Could you help improve my worldmodel to the point that it contains this distinction?
      - throwaway2048 11y ago
        its a vast topic by itself, but its usually based around the idea that violating unwaivable rights would be grossly unfair or abusive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability is a closely related concept. Unfortunately for the people that like to think about the law in terms of hard logical equation evaluations, this is one area that is quite "fuzzy", simply because of the massive amount of circumstance surronding individual issues.
  - aikah 11y ago
    > As before, all transactions are going to involve giving up some rights. But no transaction involves giving up the right to contest the nature of the transaction and its lawfulness. I could sign a contract saying I have to work 100 hours a week tomorrow it wouldn't matter, that's illegal. If my employer fires me for not working 100 hours a week effectively well, too bad, he's going to bleed a lot of money in a court of law, because what he made me sign was illegal at first place. A contract isn't a holy paper that superseeds the law.
    - SilasX 11y ago
      >But no transaction involves giving up the right to contest the nature of the transaction and its lawfulness. Is that the right Uber drivers were force to give up? I can't tell what this is referring to.
jackgavigan 11y ago
You're still confusing a contract with rights. Contracts are about an exchange of obligations but they don't override one's rights. Shylock v Antonio does not set a precedent. You can give up certain rights under certain circumstances. For example, a compromise agreement involves giving up certain rights under employment law in exchange for money. However, you must receive advice from a suitably qualified and independent adviser, or the compromise agreement is invalid - see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/203 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/203 ObIANAL
- SilasX 11y ago
  Every taking on of an obligation is equivalently expressible as the waiver of a right. As before, trading $1 for an apple can be expressed as "Alice waives the right to the apple and Bob te right to the $1." It would make no sense to say "Alice's rights are being violated because she was denied use of her apple!" What I think is happening is that you're only calling some rights waivers as rights waivers, which makes it hard to isolate which transactions you find unacceptable and why. Could you maybe flesh that out? I've tried to get satisfactory answers on this when it comes up, but to no avail.
  - jackgavigan 11y ago
    UK employment law doesn't grant anyone rights to apples.
    - SilasX 11y ago
      If you buy apples, UK law recognizes you as having a right to those apples. If you then trade the rights to those apples away, you don't get a bunch of judges tut-tutting the person who received them, lecturing him about how you have the right to those apples. If you have a right, you should be able to trade that right. A right you cannot trade should more properly be called an obligation. If there are good reasons not to allow trading away a right, you should articulate those reasons, as I asked originally. It is not sufficient to simply cite their existence.