5 ms·

The counterargument is that you are welcome not to do business with companies that require you to accept such a condition, just as you are welcome not to accept

The counterargument is that you are welcome not to do business with companies that require you to accept such a condition, just as you are welcome not to accept a job with such a condition. Unemployment rates are about as low as they ever get right now; work somewhere else. Freedom means that you can voluntarily enter into arrangements that others think are a bad idea. Is it worth a little extra pay to accept that condition? A lot of extra pay? The market will figure it out. Banning the practice, on the other hand, removes a bit of freedom. Of course, that argument is largely baloney, but it's not straight up insane.

fwdpropaganda 8y ago
> The counterargument is that you are welcome not to do business with companies (...) Of course, that argument is largely baloney, but it's not straight up insane. This is the idea of "freedom" that the right wing loves pushing, that all things that matter can be discussed as one-to-one interactions. The argument is baloney because if all companies do it you don't really have a choice. You won't see this fact if you always think in terms of one-to-one interactions. "Freedom" as one-to-one interactions is structurally favorable to large corporations.
- Domenic_S 8y ago
  I’m out.
  - Lionsion 8y ago
    > I’m out. So do you admit you're wrong to the degree you think your comments shouldn't be seen? Or can you just not stand the downvotes? I think withdrawing and mass deleting half of a conversation is kinda bad form.
    - fwdpropaganda 8y ago
      Yes, he admits. Go through his comment history and it's nothing but unsubstantive and/or snarky remarks. I wish there was a way to detect these people at a glance so that I'd have saved myself the time. Maybe a metric like karma per year? Very gameable, but maybe better than nothing? This guy's account is 7 years old and has 3k karma. Or maybe karma per comment.
  - Retra 8y ago
    Of the very few things in life that are simple and straightforward, the matter of which things people actually choose in their lives are not one of them. For instance, you could just as easily chosen to write a completely different comment. But alas, you did not.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - fwdpropaganda 8y ago
    If every company does it then it's not just about cell phone or whatever, is it? In particular, you would have no employment.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - fwdpropaganda 8y ago
      For the record, GP post was edited and is not what I responded to. Originally it was the "no one is holding a gun to your head" argument. Because as we know, guns are the only thing in the world capable of constraining freedom /s
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Is it worth a little extra pay to accept that condition? A lot of extra pay? The market will figure it out." The people most of these clauses are forced upon usually have the least amount of bargaining power. Thus, they're usually not getting anything extra (unless you count just getting or keeping the job in the first place as extra).
- gowld 8y ago
  In this case, aren't we discussing Uber passengers? Not people out in a powerless position at the outset.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I wouldn't agree with that. But the article is about employees.
ProAm 8y ago
> The counterargument is that you are welcome not to do business with companies that require you to accept such a condition While you are right, it's not reasonable for any person to assume they are waiving their rights to legal action if you are raped by using a transportation service for merely clicking on 'Accept' to the EULA.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  >they are waiving their rights to legal action The criminal matter can still be reported and dealt with the normal way, no? Isn't what is being waived is suing a third party for employing the accused (specifically, suing for negligence in employing the accused when they shouldn't have)?
  - ProAm 8y ago
    Except Uber executives have interfered in rape incidents with their drivers in the past, this should not be forced into arbitration. [1] In most cases I feel the company will be found not at fault, but feel it's the customers right to sue and lose. [1] https://www.recode.net/2017/6/7/15754316/uber-executive-india-assault-rape-medical-records https://www.recode.net/2017/6/7/15754316/uber-executive-indi...
    - gowld 8y ago
      That's a different crime (obstruction of justice) and a different tort (Uber office/management vs victim, not driver vs victim), not covered by the EULA.
Lionsion 8y ago
> Freedom means that you can voluntarily enter into arrangements that others think are a bad idea. Ah yes, the cherished freedom to "choose" to be scammed and taken advantage of by others. It's really the most important of all our freedoms. /s
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  Would freedom be allowing for gambling or banning gambling? I think the bigger problem is that people don't understand what they are signing. To me the real issue is the lack of informed consent in these contracts, as people don't understand the consequences of an arbitration agreement. This also results in the few people who do having no market power left to enact any change.
  - Lionsion 8y ago
    > Would freedom be allowing for gambling or banning gambling? It's not so binary. You could allow for regulated gambling that mitigates the social problems, but ban unregulated gambling. > To me the real issue is the lack of informed consent in these contracts, as people don't understand the consequences of an arbitration agreement. I agree that's part of the issue, but not the "real" issue. For example: if you desperately need a job and someone puts an all-or-nothing employment contract with an arbitration clause in front of you, you'll sign even if you fully understand that arbitration is a bad deal for you. The real issue is that these arbitration clauses can be put in a non-negotiable, all-or-nothing contract by the more powerful and savvy party to the determent of the weaker one.
    - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
      >The real issue is that these arbitration clauses can be put in a non-negotiable, all-or-nothing contract by the more powerful and savvy party to the determent of the weaker one. In this case, given the difference in power between the two entities, I think the issue is still consent not being valid. Arbitration is one bad thing to stick in, but there are many other clauses that a person would normally not agree to but who are coerced by the situation to agree to. To me the issue is still a matter of given consent when in a coercive interaction where the parties involved has significant power differences.

fwdpropaganda 8y ago

> The counterargument is that you are welcome not to do business with companies (...) Of course, that argument is largely baloney, but it's not straight up insane. This is the idea of "freedom" that the right wing loves pushing, that all things that matter can be discussed as one-to-one interactions. The argument is baloney because if all companies do it you don't really have a choice. You won't see this fact if you always think in terms of one-to-one interactions. "Freedom" as one-to-one interactions is structurally favorable to large corporations.

Domenic_S 8y ago
I’m out.
- Lionsion 8y ago
  > I’m out. So do you admit you're wrong to the degree you think your comments shouldn't be seen? Or can you just not stand the downvotes? I think withdrawing and mass deleting half of a conversation is kinda bad form.
  - fwdpropaganda 8y ago
    Yes, he admits. Go through his comment history and it's nothing but unsubstantive and/or snarky remarks. I wish there was a way to detect these people at a glance so that I'd have saved myself the time. Maybe a metric like karma per year? Very gameable, but maybe better than nothing? This guy's account is 7 years old and has 3k karma. Or maybe karma per comment.
- Retra 8y ago
  Of the very few things in life that are simple and straightforward, the matter of which things people actually choose in their lives are not one of them. For instance, you could just as easily chosen to write a completely different comment. But alas, you did not.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- fwdpropaganda 8y ago
  If every company does it then it's not just about cell phone or whatever, is it? In particular, you would have no employment.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - fwdpropaganda 8y ago
    For the record, GP post was edited and is not what I responded to. Originally it was the "no one is holding a gun to your head" argument. Because as we know, guns are the only thing in the world capable of constraining freedom /s
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"Is it worth a little extra pay to accept that condition? A lot of extra pay? The market will figure it out." The people most of these clauses are forced upon usually have the least amount of bargaining power. Thus, they're usually not getting anything extra (unless you count just getting or keeping the job in the first place as extra).

gowld 8y ago
In this case, aren't we discussing Uber passengers? Not people out in a powerless position at the outset.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I wouldn't agree with that. But the article is about employees.

ProAm 8y ago

> The counterargument is that you are welcome not to do business with companies that require you to accept such a condition While you are right, it's not reasonable for any person to assume they are waiving their rights to legal action if you are raped by using a transportation service for merely clicking on 'Accept' to the EULA.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>they are waiving their rights to legal action The criminal matter can still be reported and dealt with the normal way, no? Isn't what is being waived is suing a third party for employing the accused (specifically, suing for negligence in employing the accused when they shouldn't have)?
- ProAm 8y ago
  Except Uber executives have interfered in rape incidents with their drivers in the past, this should not be forced into arbitration. [1] In most cases I feel the company will be found not at fault, but feel it's the customers right to sue and lose. [1] https://www.recode.net/2017/6/7/15754316/uber-executive-india-assault-rape-medical-records https://www.recode.net/2017/6/7/15754316/uber-executive-indi...
  - gowld 8y ago
    That's a different crime (obstruction of justice) and a different tort (Uber office/management vs victim, not driver vs victim), not covered by the EULA.

Lionsion 8y ago

> Freedom means that you can voluntarily enter into arrangements that others think are a bad idea. Ah yes, the cherished freedom to "choose" to be scammed and taken advantage of by others. It's really the most important of all our freedoms. /s

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
Would freedom be allowing for gambling or banning gambling? I think the bigger problem is that people don't understand what they are signing. To me the real issue is the lack of informed consent in these contracts, as people don't understand the consequences of an arbitration agreement. This also results in the few people who do having no market power left to enact any change.
- Lionsion 8y ago
  > Would freedom be allowing for gambling or banning gambling? It's not so binary. You could allow for regulated gambling that mitigates the social problems, but ban unregulated gambling. > To me the real issue is the lack of informed consent in these contracts, as people don't understand the consequences of an arbitration agreement. I agree that's part of the issue, but not the "real" issue. For example: if you desperately need a job and someone puts an all-or-nothing employment contract with an arbitration clause in front of you, you'll sign even if you fully understand that arbitration is a bad deal for you. The real issue is that these arbitration clauses can be put in a non-negotiable, all-or-nothing contract by the more powerful and savvy party to the determent of the weaker one.
  - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    >The real issue is that these arbitration clauses can be put in a non-negotiable, all-or-nothing contract by the more powerful and savvy party to the determent of the weaker one. In this case, given the difference in power between the two entities, I think the issue is still consent not being valid. Arbitration is one bad thing to stick in, but there are many other clauses that a person would normally not agree to but who are coerced by the situation to agree to. To me the issue is still a matter of given consent when in a coercive interaction where the parties involved has significant power differences.