I admit naievity, but I didn't think contract law could waive things this fundamental.
It feels like somebody drove contract law to a very strange place. Can we sign away rights to fundamental freedoms and become slaves?
It feels like somebody drove contract law to a very strange place. Can we sign away rights to fundamental freedoms and become slaves?
In civilized countries, it can't: binding arbitration is unenforceable in Canada, Europe, Japan, etc. This is purely an American problem.
Are you sure you aren't mixing up binding arbitration with something else?
Edit: it sounded like you were talking about arbitration in a more general context than just employment contracts. If you are just talking about employment contracts than you are probably right (except possible for Canada, where there seems to be case law going both ways, so it seems to depend on the particulars of what is in dispute and how the contract is written).
"In France, as a general rule, arbitration concerning individual employment contracts is prohibited. This holds true even in cases where the parties have included an arbitration agreement and a valid choice of law clause designating that foreign law applies to the entirety of the employment contract. Such a strict interpretation is seen as a public policy measure intended to protect employees who are considered to be in a necessarily weaker bargaining position compared to their employers. By giving Labor Courts the unique competency to adjudicate such matters, France can effectively safeguard its workforce.
Similar interests motivate protective regulatory schemes in most European Union (EU) nations where, as we will discuss, the prevalence of arbitration in labor and employment disputes remains limited and political weariness towards the practice pervades. "
Your employer cant say ah you must use my mate Saul the solicitor that did my last house purchase who I know from the golf club.
For example, Germany actually asserts a civil right requiring that every employee have access to at least 4 hours of daylight every day. In the US, no such law would be respected or enforced, given the latitude granted corporate misbehavior.
Even if an explicit amendment to that effect were asserted in our Constitution, still our courts would gladly entertain the redefinition of every part of that statute, from "employee" to "daylight" to "4 hours".
This widespread institutional tolerance of legalistic weaseling by haves to overwhelm civil rights of the have-nots is quite uncivilized, there's no better word for it.
In this case, IBM's malefactions toward elders is a perfect illustration of civil abuse. For this and the sundry other ways the company has victimized its staff and customers for decades, IBM richly deserves no less than a death sentence.
I'm very interested, but my google-fu is not good enough apparently.
Most rules are available at https://www.baua.de/DE/Angebote/Rechtstexte-und-Technische-R... and a good summary is at http://publikationen.dguv.de/dguv/pdf/10002/i-7007.pdf
If an ex-employee wants to break a contract, they can do so. But they must return the severance payment.
There is a risk of Specific Performance, but that seems inapplicable here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance
that's a very perverse perspective, and is exactly the sentiment a multi-national corporation like IBM would want you to have.
a job is an opportunity for two parties on equal footing to make a favorable exchange: my labor for your cash. it's a classic example of a capitalistic win-win. it's an opportunity for me to ply my trade, to further develop my expertise so that my offerings are more attractive to others and i can make more money. it's an opportunity for you to further your business objectives, widen your offerings, and widen your reach.
slavery is ownership. it's callous and flippant to make such a correlation to work for hire.
Chattel slavery is ownership, but slavery extends beyond just chattel slavery.