> Employees, who are the party with low power, must accept the terms or GTFO.
I have successfully asked for some clauses to be removed from the contract.
I have successfully asked for some clauses to be removed from the contract.
A better world is one where this doesn't...yanno...happen at all, yeah?
He' what's wrong with America, BTW.
If you don’t want this to happen in your own life, then don’t sign such contracts. Leave other people to their own business. You are not their parent.
A large chunk of the workforce does not. They depend on the paycheck, need to feed people that depend on them and in their case, the employer holds all the cards. They more or less must sign. Even if they have another option lined up, for them it’s probably the choice between bad or worse terms.
It's just basic supply and demand. A job that anyone can do is going to have a larger labor supply than a job that few people can do. Employer demand is also a factor. Right now truck drivers are getting very lucrative offers because demand is so high, despite the relatively low skill level. Also risk factors, especially risk of death, can drive compensation sharply higher. For example working on live natural gas pipelines or deep sea welding isn't particularly high skill, but the compensation is huge because it has a tendency to lead to death.
If those people don't want their kids in this situation maybe they should try being not poor. You feel me?
Hold a gun to someone's head and act like they have a free choice when they decide to do what you demand of them.
And I care far, far, far more about the employees, than I do the employers.
As it stands, the employee, barring fairly singular instances (and, I note, I am one and I have hired them, I understand where the line goes), has no power.
They have a Hobson's choice not merely with one employer but with all of them.
You describe a senior and socially competent tech worker's delight. Some of us have empathy for those who are not. "Oh, but more people with no market power can 'negotiate'" is not a net benefit for people even if it was a beneficial situation for me.
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."
Anecdotally, I know someone who had a non-compete clause in their hiring contract to work as the desk attendant at a hotel, in California none the less. This is basically a minimum wage job in a state where non-competes are illegal statewide.
Sure, my friend could have asked for it to be removed, but that would mean delaying the hiring process and extra work for the hiring manager who now has to go through the legal team to make any changes to the contract. When there are 20 other equally qualified candidates, why would the hotel waste their time? It makes more sense for the hotel to just find someone else who is willing to sign the illegal contract.
Non-competes in that situation are empty threats to keep workers who don't know any better from quitting.
They should be banned to protect workers from the off chance that somebody decides to follow through.
Explicit, not implicit.
It's kind of fucked up though that putting something obviously unenforceable in a hiring contract isn't being punished. Either the worker ignores it, knowing there's nothing the company can do, or they take it seriously and are afraid to quit to go to a competitor. It's pretty much no lose for the company though.