2 ms·

Of course I don't suggest SpaceX ignores the law. That would put them in a lot of trouble. What I'm saying is, people should stop and think for a moment: wait a

by snitko 12y ago

Of course I don't suggest SpaceX ignores the law. That would put them in a lot of trouble. What I'm saying is, people should stop and think for a moment: wait a minute, why do we have this monopoly on law which many people exploit and why can't we allow people to freely sign employment contracts with the terms defined in advance? If, for example, 100% of people who SpaceX could hire would express concern over a possible layoff, then SpaceX would have no choice, but to put this into the contract, specifying potential payouts in the case of such a layoff. However, I think people would actually compete to get into SpaceX, thus the actual terms of the contract wouldn't include that. In short, let the market decide voluntarily, what are the best terms. What's going on now is one side (employees) taking advantage of the other side. I don't care how rich Elon Musk is. If he made his money honestly, he doesn't owe a cent to those employees.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
waps 12y ago
> why can't we allow people to freely sign employment contracts with the terms defined in advance? Because 1) What incentive would people have to abide by their deals ? (also known as : NEVER sign a contract with any royalty or any parliament or congress. They are not bound by them. Just don't get yourself into that) 2) How would you even know the terms of a contract ? People may think they agree about every detail, I have done enough law to know perfectly well they never do. Given the chance, people will sign things like "I rent this room for 800 euro per month", for example. Now, the primary renter dies in a car crash, what happens ? Who owes what ? What if they're married ? What if there's children ? Does the inheritor inherit the obligation ? 3) How would you resolve obvious assymetric bargaining positions ? Suppose someone signed a contract selling someone into slavery ? Before you say otherwise, note that under muslim law, that is legal. Without law of the land, who is to say this is wrong ? And what would you do about it. But these are the obvious arguments. How about I save the 5000 page book this would become if we went over the entire set of problems that contracts pose. Here's a link, I guarantee that every single paragraph identifies a problem in "pure" contract law and free agreements between parties : http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc Or how about the European law version : http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/content/download/1950/13681/version/3/file/Code_22.pdf http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/content/download/1950/13681/ve... Read a few pages. It's not nonsense.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> What's going on now is one side (employees) taking advantage of the other side. No, its not. Both sides voluntarily entered into an agreement with knowledge of the legal context (well, at least constructive knowledge -- in terms of actual knowledge, there is a real imbalance, here, but it almost always favors the employer, as the side who is more likely to both motivated and able to secure expert assistance prior to making decisions whether, where, and on what terms to engage in employment agreements.) > I don't care how rich Elon Musk is. If he made his money honestly, he doesn't owe a cent to those employees. To the extent that SpaceX makes money by not treating people according to the law under which they agreed to employment, the money is not made honestly, so even if I accepted your maxim, it would be irrelevant.

by snitko 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

waps 12y ago

> why can't we allow people to freely sign employment contracts with the terms defined in advance? Because 1) What incentive would people have to abide by their deals ? (also known as : NEVER sign a contract with any royalty or any parliament or congress. They are not bound by them. Just don't get yourself into that) 2) How would you even know the terms of a contract ? People may think they agree about every detail, I have done enough law to know perfectly well they never do. Given the chance, people will sign things like "I rent this room for 800 euro per month", for example. Now, the primary renter dies in a car crash, what happens ? Who owes what ? What if they're married ? What if there's children ? Does the inheritor inherit the obligation ? 3) How would you resolve obvious assymetric bargaining positions ? Suppose someone signed a contract selling someone into slavery ? Before you say otherwise, note that under muslim law, that is legal. Without law of the land, who is to say this is wrong ? And what would you do about it. But these are the obvious arguments. How about I save the 5000 page book this would become if we went over the entire set of problems that contracts pose. Here's a link, I guarantee that every single paragraph identifies a problem in "pure" contract law and free agreements between parties : http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc Or how about the European law version : http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/content/download/1950/13681/version/3/file/Code_22.pdf http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/content/download/1950/13681/ve... Read a few pages. It's not nonsense.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> What's going on now is one side (employees) taking advantage of the other side. No, its not. Both sides voluntarily entered into an agreement with knowledge of the legal context (well, at least constructive knowledge -- in terms of actual knowledge, there is a real imbalance, here, but it almost always favors the employer, as the side who is more likely to both motivated and able to secure expert assistance prior to making decisions whether, where, and on what terms to engage in employment agreements.) > I don't care how rich Elon Musk is. If he made his money honestly, he doesn't owe a cent to those employees. To the extent that SpaceX makes money by not treating people according to the law under which they agreed to employment, the money is not made honestly, so even if I accepted your maxim, it would be irrelevant.