Sure, a relatively small number of employees have this ability, due to market demand or whatever, so congrats! If you want to feel what it’s like to negotiate employment as a more usual employee, try negotiating the terms of your cell phone contract.

He said he got his, what don't you understand.

He' what's wrong with America, BTW.

100% agree. I think a disproportionate number of the people on this site work in high paying, high demand fields and it gives us a kind of warped view of what the job market is like.

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.

And why would the hotel ever waste their time and legal resources enforcing a non-compete on a minimum wage desk clerk when they can just hire another one tomorrow?

Non-competes in that situation are empty threats to keep workers who don't know any better from quitting.

Oh, I totally agree it's an empty threat, but many workers don't know that.

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.

I agree that they're empty threats in the general case.

They should be banned to protect workers from the off chance that somebody decides to follow through.

Explicit, not implicit.

What, negotiating?

The balance of power involved makes is inimical to negotiation for many classes of employees in the United States. And because people are more important than businesses, this is something of a problem.

Yeah. I just don't understand your comment. The company and the employee both need to have some power to define the job role and compensation.

I agree.

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.

Ok so, wouldn't you want this situation to come up more often, where a prospective employee can get the contract changed? You said you'd rather not have this happen at all.

Except that it won't happen more often because that power imbalance exists. I have some power when negotiating because I'm experienced, I'm very good at something in extreme demand, and I'm knowledgeable about how a business works. Most people don't have two or more of those things.

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."

I disagree. It is not a better world to prevent people (employers) from doing things that they wish to do, that willing consensual partners in those activities do not object to.

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.

This is spoken from a position of privilege. We, as highly skilled tech workers in a field where demand outstrips availability, with probably a solid rainy day fund accumulated, we can afford to say no to a contract because we know the next is round the corner and we know how to feed family until then.

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.

That's not what the word privilege means. Having marketable skills isn't the result of privilege, it's the result of education and work.

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.

You're right. We should let people (employers) employ young children to do dangerous work. As long as the dirt poor parents consent, then it's OK right?

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.

Your point being, a huge imbalance of power makes mutual consent meaningless.

You focused so much on making a sarcastic comment that you ended up not even making sense. The person you're replying to specifically said a consensual agreement between the parties involved in the activity. How does that have anything to do with parents forcing their children to do dangerous work for someone else? Maybe try and comprehend what you're reading before hitting the reply button, it'll help keep you from looking like an ass.

Hobson's choices are not meaningfully consensual in the first place; the sarcasm used reflects this.

I once got put under a similar contract, while I was employed. (part of a merger). The alternative was to be out of a job with a pregnant wife. I later talked to a labor lawyer, who told me it was essentially unenforceable, and he was >95% certain I would win, but the contract also stipulated that it would be tried in NY (A very far away from me place) and that it would probably cost me $5k-$10k to defend it.

Yeah, no. You're completely ignoring the vast power imbalance at play here.

And I care far, far, far more about the employees, than I do the employers.