That in combination with the claim that he asked other employees to come with him while they were his subordinates at Tesla, is the strongest argument the company has in this case, and maybe that combination has some merit. I'm arguing against the general claim that an "agreement" in an employment contract that the employee had no meaningful choice about signing, is morally binding.
> What if the employer hired a person under duress, like they were in desperate need of some particular skill. Does that mean they can decide not pay the person?
There is a classical thought experiment in ethics, on that very topic. Suppose you're stuck on a high window ledge with no way down, likely to lose your footing and fall in the next few minutes, and you see a man passing with a ladder. He offers to get you down for a million dollars. How binding is your agreement? Me, I figure since it was made under duress, you're entitled to renegotiate a more reasonable figure once on the ground. Some thinkers have given much stronger answers than that! What's your answer?
I'll offer him much less. If I fall, he gets nothing.
It's not a realistic question anyway. If you were fired from your job tomorrow, are you really going to drop dead? I doubt it. Is the job you have the one and only job you could ever have? That somehow, when you were born, you were destined by fate to have only this job and there is nothing you can do about it?
I don't buy that people have "no meaningful choice" in employment, not even close. I've heard all kinds of justifications for stealing from others, cheating on exams, etc. Even justifications by well paid office workers for stealing office supplies. I'm not buying it.
1. You are a man of principle, to a degree that is highly unusual.
2. Your intuition, from a position of safety and comfort, about what you would do in dire straits, is inaccurate, to a degree that is highly usual.
The difference in prior probability of these two scenarios is equally obvious.
> If you were fired from your job tomorrow, are you really going to drop dead? I doubt it.
I already pointed out that much depends on whether other employers are offering better terms. But as for your question, actually there are many people for whom being fired is a life-threatening crisis. For many people, the expected timescale to find another job is somewhere between several months and never. If you've been unemployed more than six months, your perceived employability drops sharply. Many countries have an inadequate social safety net, such that long-term unemployment is likely to lead to homelessness, which is a life-threatening condition from which it is very difficult to escape. I remember one person who spent some time homeless and barely escaped from it, saying if it happened again he'd just commit suicide on day one and be done. That is the reality for a large percentage of humanity today, and in most developed countries it's getting worse not better.
You can believe what you wish. My father told me that what separated men from animals is men have honor. People have a choice - but nobody said it was an easy one.
Anyway, your father sounds like a wise man. It is dishonorable to break an agreement, certainly. It is also dishonorable to exploit someone's desperate circumstances to coerce them into signing an extremely one-sided and unreasonable contract. We are all bound by a set of implicit agreements regarding basic standards of civilized behavior; that's a prerequisite for civilization itself.
The guy was a highly paid executive. I don't understand how he could have been under duress. (Is Elon Musk really hiring desperate people who have no options?)
What if the employer hired a person under duress, like they were in desperate need of some particular skill. Does that mean they can decide not pay the person?
I've had employers strike clauses that I didn't agree with. Contracts are hardly written in stone tablets. If contracts were non-negotiable and were employees' only option, everyone would be working for minimum wage.