5 ms·

You’re not living up to your moniker’s namesake with this comment. As a general matter, people in fact should have enough agency to be able to evaluate a situat

You’re not living up to your moniker’s namesake with this comment. As a general matter, people in fact should have enough agency to be able to evaluate a situation and decide to sign away certain protections. There are many exceptions to this, but signing away one’s ability to freely leave a job without consequence in exchange for upskilling at their employer’s expense falls squarely into the principle above.

fzeroracer 3y ago
The funny thing is, we know the outcome of your line of thinking. Eventually it becomes normalized and part of every contract. That's why we had to stamp out non-competes because otherwise companies would gladly collude to make it so there is no choice.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Have you read contracts, terms of services? You don't acually need to. I'll summarize 100% of those documents for you right now in an easy to understand post with no legalese. > you own nothing > the company owns everything > you have no rights > you promise not to try and exercise any right you think you have > you agree to binding arbitration with the firm we pay, just in case you ever get it in your silly little head that you do have rights > you cannot do anything the company doesn't like > the company can do anything it wants whether you like it or not > the company is not responsible for anything ever > the company makes absolutely no guarantees about anything > however you are liable for everything that you do that we do not approve of That's what happens when you can alienate people from their rights via contract: alienation turns into legal boilerplate present in every single one of those documents. The only possible reason for a company not to do this is ignorance or legal liability.
- BrandoElFollito 3y ago
  Contracts are good, they are a proof of mutual engagement. Contracts that enforce only one position are not good - this is why we have string labour laws. A contract in France cannot have anything that is outside the labour law. They are completely generic.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    I'm not arguing against the existence of contracts. I'm arguing against the position that people should have the "ability" to waive away their own rights. Such an "ability" inevitably leads to the boilerplate situation I described above. My country's laws work the same way as what you described. I've had lawyers straight up laugh when I presented them some of these abusive contracts. This "waive your rights" business seems to be an american thing.
    - BrandoElFollito 3y ago
      This is why I am not suggesting that people waive their rights - this should be completely forbidden because it will be used against them (and in France it is not possible for you to waive your rights, that part of the contract just does not exist in the eye of the law) What I suggested is to have another company take the burden of the training that happened right before someone left.

fzeroracer 3y ago

The funny thing is, we know the outcome of your line of thinking. Eventually it becomes normalized and part of every contract. That's why we had to stamp out non-competes because otherwise companies would gladly collude to make it so there is no choice.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

Have you read contracts, terms of services? You don't acually need to. I'll summarize 100% of those documents for you right now in an easy to understand post with no legalese. > you own nothing > the company owns everything > you have no rights > you promise not to try and exercise any right you think you have > you agree to binding arbitration with the firm we pay, just in case you ever get it in your silly little head that you do have rights > you cannot do anything the company doesn't like > the company can do anything it wants whether you like it or not > the company is not responsible for anything ever > the company makes absolutely no guarantees about anything > however you are liable for everything that you do that we do not approve of That's what happens when you can alienate people from their rights via contract: alienation turns into legal boilerplate present in every single one of those documents. The only possible reason for a company not to do this is ignorance or legal liability.

BrandoElFollito 3y ago
Contracts are good, they are a proof of mutual engagement. Contracts that enforce only one position are not good - this is why we have string labour laws. A contract in France cannot have anything that is outside the labour law. They are completely generic.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  I'm not arguing against the existence of contracts. I'm arguing against the position that people should have the "ability" to waive away their own rights. Such an "ability" inevitably leads to the boilerplate situation I described above. My country's laws work the same way as what you described. I've had lawyers straight up laugh when I presented them some of these abusive contracts. This "waive your rights" business seems to be an american thing.
  - BrandoElFollito 3y ago
    This is why I am not suggesting that people waive their rights - this should be completely forbidden because it will be used against them (and in France it is not possible for you to waive your rights, that part of the contract just does not exist in the eye of the law) What I suggested is to have another company take the burden of the training that happened right before someone left.