Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zanni | Hacker News Reader

Except they're not prevented from quitting. If they work at McDonald's, they can walk down the street to Burger King, just not another McDonald's location. To me that seems like enough freedom for employees that I'd want to see compelling evidence that being unable to switch to another location of the same fast food place (which would presumably offer identical wages) actually harms employees.

View on HN

What kind of world do you live in where you think the employee needs to provide evidence that they are being harmed before they are allowed to seek a new job?

Companies can enter into contracts with employees to prevent them from going to other employers but unless they offer some sort of consideration you are walking down the path towards indentured servitude and slavery

They don't offer identical wages. The McDonald's by my house offers $17/hr starting pay. The McDonald's by my work ~7 miles away offers $13/hr starting pay.

That's about a 30% raise for an extra 15 minutes of commute each day.

This is the kind of evidence I was talking about (and not presented in the article).

Not all jobs are the same. If you read the article, it mentions a person trying to get a better position at a different location. That means an entry level employee couldn’t take a manager job at another franchise.

Why that way? Why shouldn't the employers have to prove that they have a significant need before severely restricting employee freedom?

70s conservatives: "If you don't like your job, get an education"

80s conservatives: "If you don't like your job, quit and get another one"

90s conservatives: "If you don't like your job, start your own business"

Neo conservatives: "If you don't like your job, I need to see compelling evidence that you are being harmed"

Hahaha

Neoconservativism places a lot of importance in the free market, I don’t see how contracts that prevent people from seeking work could be labeled as neoconservative policy.

The free market for the business owner

I've never seen evidence that those arguing for a freer market want such for the employee

Then I think you might not be very familiar with economics, because that’s the market theory of wage determination, which is simply supply and demand applied to the labor market. Can you provide any examples of conservatives who argue against the existence of a competitive labor market?

The guy up above who thinks employees need to show proof that they are harmed before these restrictive convenants are prevented.

I thought we were talking about neoconservative economists and policy makers, not random and anonymous online commenters.

Because the importance they place in the free market isn't genuine? It's only used when it benefits them. When it comes to employees, they want the furthest thing from a free market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com