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.