4 ms·

To jump to the root of the issue, what you're missing is that you're valuing the rights of the contract over the outcomes for these employees. Myself, I would

To jump to the root of the issue, what you're missing is that you're valuing the rights of the contract over the outcomes for these employees. Myself, I would like the lives of these affected employees to be better rather than worse, and I'll trade away the enforcement of these agreements in order to get that. Also, the problem with slavery and indentured servitude wasn't that they were illegal. And, you could invoke voluntaryism but, like, look how pervasive forced arbitration and IP assignment clauses are - you can't realistically "volunteer" your way out of them nowadays.

_8j50 4y ago
Why are the outcomes relevant if you agreed to them knowing them beforehand and without coercion? About being illegal, I am not talking about that either, legal or not if you agree to something having all the facts clearly portrayed to you, you are responsible for what happens if you agree to it. I think the real root cause is you and others seem to think lack of alternate opportunities equates coercion, which I disagree with. I also disagree that improvement of people's lives can be more important than basic fairness,equality, accountability and justice. You are only formalizing fraud and corruption that way. You make a good point about forced arbitration, but with that it isn't specific but general to cover all disputes which you don't know when you sign that agreement. It also circumvents legal procedure where even if you think it is in your best interest and agree to it, it isn't in the interest of justice. Oh and how is that not enforced but plea agreements are?? (Is there anything more slavery like than prison???)
- bestcoder69 4y ago
  > Why are the outcomes relevant if you agreed to them knowing them beforehand and without coercion? See my statement of my values vs yours. You're just on the other side. There's nothing left to understand. I'll skip the coercion point because that requires mind-reading, plus it requires me to believe that literally anyone reads a contract ever, and people will choose poverty if they can't find an employment agreement they like and understand. If you want to define coercion to the point that it's useless, that's fine, but let's pick a new word and move on if it makes you happy. "Pressure"? > Is there anything more slavery like than prison??? You seem to think lack of opportunities equates to coercion. Also, the bit about being generally in favor of worker's rights makes your post a concern troll. I wasn't born yesterday, I know what right to work, at-will employment, and reason.com are.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    > I'll skip the coercion point because that requires mind-reading, plus it requires me to believe that literally anyone reads a contract ever, and people will choose poverty if they can't find an employment agreement they like and understand... You don't need mind reading, in the US what a "reasonable" person would consider the situation is all that matters. As for reading contracts, if the conditions were not made clear to you verbally and if it was hidden in a contract somewhere I see no problem in arguing that contract is void. Ok, pressure is a nice word but you can choose poverty you just don't want to. If poverty means no food and shelter then I would agree that it is indeed coercion not just "pressure". When these contracts are so widespread that it affects people's ability to find food and shelter then it is coordinated coercion, a conspiracy if you will. > You seem to think lack of opportunities equates to coercion. No, I was talking about plea bargains and actual prison. Either you risk 30yrs or you falsely admit you are guilty so you can get 5years. Extortion in any other context. I don't get your last paragraph at all.
    - bestcoder69 4y ago
      e: Deleting -- I don't need the last word, and I wrote too much with too much snark. I think we know what the disagreements are, it's fine.

_8j50 4y ago

Why are the outcomes relevant if you agreed to them knowing them beforehand and without coercion? About being illegal, I am not talking about that either, legal or not if you agree to something having all the facts clearly portrayed to you, you are responsible for what happens if you agree to it. I think the real root cause is you and others seem to think lack of alternate opportunities equates coercion, which I disagree with. I also disagree that improvement of people's lives can be more important than basic fairness,equality, accountability and justice. You are only formalizing fraud and corruption that way. You make a good point about forced arbitration, but with that it isn't specific but general to cover all disputes which you don't know when you sign that agreement. It also circumvents legal procedure where even if you think it is in your best interest and agree to it, it isn't in the interest of justice. Oh and how is that not enforced but plea agreements are?? (Is there anything more slavery like than prison???)

bestcoder69 4y ago
> Why are the outcomes relevant if you agreed to them knowing them beforehand and without coercion? See my statement of my values vs yours. You're just on the other side. There's nothing left to understand. I'll skip the coercion point because that requires mind-reading, plus it requires me to believe that literally anyone reads a contract ever, and people will choose poverty if they can't find an employment agreement they like and understand. If you want to define coercion to the point that it's useless, that's fine, but let's pick a new word and move on if it makes you happy. "Pressure"? > Is there anything more slavery like than prison??? You seem to think lack of opportunities equates to coercion. Also, the bit about being generally in favor of worker's rights makes your post a concern troll. I wasn't born yesterday, I know what right to work, at-will employment, and reason.com are.
- _8j50 4y ago
  > I'll skip the coercion point because that requires mind-reading, plus it requires me to believe that literally anyone reads a contract ever, and people will choose poverty if they can't find an employment agreement they like and understand... You don't need mind reading, in the US what a "reasonable" person would consider the situation is all that matters. As for reading contracts, if the conditions were not made clear to you verbally and if it was hidden in a contract somewhere I see no problem in arguing that contract is void. Ok, pressure is a nice word but you can choose poverty you just don't want to. If poverty means no food and shelter then I would agree that it is indeed coercion not just "pressure". When these contracts are so widespread that it affects people's ability to find food and shelter then it is coordinated coercion, a conspiracy if you will. > You seem to think lack of opportunities equates to coercion. No, I was talking about plea bargains and actual prison. Either you risk 30yrs or you falsely admit you are guilty so you can get 5years. Extortion in any other context. I don't get your last paragraph at all.
  - bestcoder69 4y ago
    e: Deleting -- I don't need the last word, and I wrote too much with too much snark. I think we know what the disagreements are, it's fine.