logoalt Hacker News

ndsipa_pomutoday at 10:00 AM1 replyview on HN

> because lawmakers think workers are metaphorical babies.

To be fair, there's a long history of abusive employers, so it's wise to try to tilt the law in favour of the employee as otherwise they get exploited even more than usual. The nature of employment is typically skewed as employers will have a lot more power than the employees - that's why Unions were invented to try to redress that balance.

> You can have a look at contracts between equals to see that being able to restrict yourself is important.

There's an important distinction between restricting yourself and signing away inalienable rights. You can certainly agree to restrict your speech so as to not embarrass your employer or give away secrets, but signing away your right to liberty is different.


Replies

erutoday at 11:05 AM

You give workers more power by making sure there's plenty of competition between employers, and plenty of other outside options for workers.

See eg how here in Singapore we have no minimum wage and basically no unions worth that name, and yet we have some of the highest wages in the world.

> There's an important distinction between restricting yourself and signing away inalienable rights. You can certainly agree to restrict your speech so as to not embarrass your employer or give away secrets, but signing away your right to liberty is different.

Granted for the sake of argument. I don't see what that has to do with binding arbitration over licensing of some computer games?

show 2 replies