I think the response is rescinded offer. The reasons will likely be along the lines of litigation risk, flight risk, culture fit, etc.

Not joking btw. It's rather amazing that employers who expect rational, logical decision making on the job want applicants to suspend their reasoning and good judgment when it comes to negotiating compensation and employment terms.

Especially when, if you're in a position of any authority, there's a good chance you'll be negotiating in their behalf. So they want you to make good deals on their behalf while making a poor one on your own behalf...I guess they're hoping you have really poor self-esteem?

> Not joking btw. It's rather amazing that employers who expect rational, logical decision making on the job want applicants to suspend their reasoning and good judgment when it comes to negotiating compensation and employment terms.

Which is when you move on to the next employer if at all possible.

It's the "if at all possible" part that is not easy for most job applicants. This is probably only marginally easier even for HN users with a higher chance of being in white hot job markets.

Not a lawyer, and the Wikipedia was hard to follow. What do you think the implications of this in writing would be?

Writing "this is a contract of adhesion" basically means "we gave this contract to the applicant and asked them to take it or leave it".

A court will be much more favorable to the applicant, then, because presenting them with a contract they have little power over is something courts generally don't like, as it is unjust.

Asking the employer to write "this is a contract of adhesion" basically means "oh, you're screwing me over? Can you please write that this is a screwing-over contract on it?".

Contracts of adhesion still are still pretty solid. Generally, it's only going to get voided if the process (i.e. take it or leave it) and the terms are unconscionable.

Courts uphold shrink wrap and click-to-agree contracts all the time.

I think it would mean that it would be more likely for a court to scrutinize the terms of the contract with an eye toward whether they were reasonable and fair, rather than simply enforcing it as written.

(ETA:) This might not help very much, because in places where noncompetes are standard, a court would be sticking its neck out a little to rule that one is unreasonable. But maybe it would help a little, if one couldn't get the provision struck from the contract altogether, and had no reasonable alternative to accepting the job. (Again: IANAL, and I'm just speculating -- no one should take this as legal advice!)