6 ms·

In Germany your employment contract can have Vertragsstrafen, ie the contract can say that if you do something you need to pay a penalty even above and beyond d

by eru 6d ago

In Germany your employment contract can have Vertragsstrafen, ie the contract can say that if you do something you need to pay a penalty even above and beyond damages. But in any case, employment contracts are weirdly restricted in many places, exactly because lawmakers think workers are metaphorical babies. You can have a look at contracts between equals to see that being able to restrict yourself is important.

ndsipa_pomu 5d ago
> 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.
- eru 5d ago
  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?
  - ndsipa_pomu 5d ago
    > You give workers more power by making sure there's plenty of competition between employers, and plenty of other outside options for workers. In theory that should work, but I have heard of U.S. companies that try to use non-compete clauses in employment contracts to prevent workers from being able to exercise their right to work in the same industry for a different company. > here in Singapore we have no minimum wage Just looked that up as I am not familiar with Singapore (apart from half a day due to airplane issues) and it appears that there is instead a sector specific Progressive Wage Model (PWM) that is mandatory for some of those sectors (e.g. food, retail, cleaning). > I don't see what that has to do with binding arbitration over licensing of some computer games? It's the notion of giving up your right to legal redress if Sony suddenly revokes your license to use what you've already paid for.
    - eru 5d ago
      You paid for exactly what the license agreement says. And that includes that Sony can pull the plug. If you still pay, that's on you.
      - ndsipa_pomu 4d ago
        On the one hand, I agree that consumers should be better informed, but on the other hand, it may not be considered legal in some jurisdictions to include such a clause. The argument would be that no-one in their right mind would agree to pay someone for a license that could be removed at any point for no redress - the consumer clearly did not understand or read that part. It's usually not legal to include "hidden" clauses in contracts that go against what people would generally accept and agree to.
  - happymellon 5d ago
    > See eg how here in Singapore we have no minimum wage The US does as well if they can pretend you made it up with "tips". The reality is that staff then just work for peanuts.

by eru 6d ago

ndsipa_pomu 5d ago

> 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.

eru 5d ago
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?
- ndsipa_pomu 5d ago
  > You give workers more power by making sure there's plenty of competition between employers, and plenty of other outside options for workers. In theory that should work, but I have heard of U.S. companies that try to use non-compete clauses in employment contracts to prevent workers from being able to exercise their right to work in the same industry for a different company. > here in Singapore we have no minimum wage Just looked that up as I am not familiar with Singapore (apart from half a day due to airplane issues) and it appears that there is instead a sector specific Progressive Wage Model (PWM) that is mandatory for some of those sectors (e.g. food, retail, cleaning). > I don't see what that has to do with binding arbitration over licensing of some computer games? It's the notion of giving up your right to legal redress if Sony suddenly revokes your license to use what you've already paid for.
  - eru 5d ago
    You paid for exactly what the license agreement says. And that includes that Sony can pull the plug. If you still pay, that's on you.
    - ndsipa_pomu 4d ago
      On the one hand, I agree that consumers should be better informed, but on the other hand, it may not be considered legal in some jurisdictions to include such a clause. The argument would be that no-one in their right mind would agree to pay someone for a license that could be removed at any point for no redress - the consumer clearly did not understand or read that part. It's usually not legal to include "hidden" clauses in contracts that go against what people would generally accept and agree to.
- happymellon 5d ago
  > See eg how here in Singapore we have no minimum wage The US does as well if they can pretend you made it up with "tips". The reality is that staff then just work for peanuts.