Hacker News Reader

Comment by andsoitis | Hacker News Reader

> The answer is the USA is reluctant to put mandates on employers that would interfere with free association of entities due to our founding being largely influenced by the idea that individuals should be free to make contracts between others.

Mandating PTO wouldn't be forcing people to make contracts; it would only say that IF you make a particular kind of contract, you need to include the following terms.

View on HN

You are correct that it would just be another kind of labor regulation, but the us is institutionally biased in favor of employers and against labor protections and it’s always been an uphill battle to enact them here. When they are enacted they are furthermore frequently rolled back or effectively neutered by lobbyist interventions in later congresses.

You can speculate and theorize about the reasons why, but the US is almost uniquely hostile to worker protections and benefits among developed countries.

It doesn't force people into contracts, but it bans two willing parties from making certain contracts.

I've always enjoyed being a contractor because I have unlimited vacation (within reason) and can balance how much time I want to take off with how much money I want to make.

> but it bans two willing parties from making certain contracts

That’s not in an of itself a bad thing. Other kinds of contracts that are banned include, but are not limited to:

- Contracts for the sale or distribution of controlled substances, such as drugs or drug paraphernalia;

- Agreements made for illegal activities, such as prostitution or gambling; and.

- Employment contracts that permit hiring underage workers.

Sure, I'm not arguing that we don't ban contracts between consenting adults. But I think we should be highly suspicious of them.

> - Contracts for the sale or distribution of controlled substances, such as drugs or drug paraphernalia; + Gambling

Consent is a gray area due to the addictive nature of the what the buyer is buying.

> Prostitution

We do ban this, mostly due to I think society finding it icky.

>- Employment contracts that permit hiring underage workers.

Not between consenting adults.

I think your conception of "willingness" on the labour-side of the equation is rosy at best. When the standard of offerings in the market is basically uniform, there isn't really any choice to be had for the worker.

Of course it does it does - people intentionally try to make contracts to provide flexibility around various labor laws and of course the government then tries to reclassify the employment relationship as falling under their purview.

Doesn't sound all that different from minimum wage protections. Any reason a PTO mandate wouldn't also pass constitutional muster under the same rationale?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com