22 ms·
I can't reply to you below, so I'll do it here. Firstly, apology accepted. Easy mistake to make. Secondly, I just can't see us letting things go that far. We'
by r_smart 8y ago
I can't reply to you below, so I'll do it here.
Firstly, apology accepted. Easy mistake to make.
Secondly, I just can't see us letting things go that far. We'll have to agree to disagree with that.
I do agree that binding arbitration clauses are terrible, and I accidentally put myself in a position where I had to sign one at my last job. We had worked out terms, and a start date and I quit my old job before I saw the employment contract. I went through and made edits, and the CEO was open to negotiating on it. There was a problem with their IP ownership clause he happily fixed, and if I wanted to, he was willing to get his lawyer involved in the removal of the arbitration clause. I let it go though because I would have been jobless if he decided I wasn't worth it.
The problem though is, how do you strike a balance between leaving people free to make economic decisions they deem in their interest vs being taken advantage of by predatory contract agreements? Arbitration and non-competes are bad, but I'm happy to agree to them...for a price.
- lovich 8y agoI agree that striking the line is difficult. The only way I see for the government to have a balance is to look at aggregate values. For instance we're seeing corporate profits and GDP skyrocket right now but worker wages aren't and haven't for decades. That would indicate to me that workers need more support from the government. On the other side if we saw companies stagnate while workers were pulling more and more out in compensation that would be a good time to loosen regulations on companies.