3 ms·

How did the Supreme Court reason that? It seems to be a violation of Amendment 7.

• emodendroket 10y ago
  The case is Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams but it doesn't really turn on constitutional issues like that from what I can tell. I suppose the reasoning is you're both equal parties and you can just turn down the employment if you don't like the provision (this argument is a ridiculous fiction since you need to work to live but whatever). I mean honestly I think this is ideologically motivated just like the rash of decisions that have practically made it impossible to file a class action lawsuit by letting companies require their customers to use arbitration.
  • awssailin 10y ago
    It sucks I agree, but, companies are not obligated to hire people or to not fire them because people need to eat or else a company could be forced, legally, to hire far more than they need or can afford. This would drive them out of business and all their employees would be on the street.
    • emodendroket 10y ago
      Whether that's correct or not it's beside the point of what I'm saying. What I mean to say is that the premise that an employee and and an employer are two equals entering into an agreement on equal footing is divorced from reality. That's the reason a minimum wage law and so on is needed in the first place.
      • loki49152 10y ago
        why should they be "on equal footing", and what could that possibly mean? They are two sides of an equation who each want different things out of the relationship. The employee wants to sell his services. The employer wants to purchase services. Unless you subscribe to the Marxist doctrine that every economic interaction is "really" a question of one party having power over the other, which is delusional like the rest of Marxism.
        • emodendroket 10y ago
          Why don't you go back and read the discussion again?