Hacker News Reader

Comment by speedplane | Hacker News Reader

> For starters, because of freedom of association. You are free to not work for any company you like. If you feel like an employer is oppressing you, you can simply leave

Nice in theory, but what about companies that are so large that they effectively control the labor market? What about companies with non-compete agreements? What about collusive non-poaching agreements between companies that lower the market value of labor? What about companies that disregard employee safety because they know the labor pool is large?

These are not theoretical objections, they are happening now. Employer/employee agreements are not "free" when they break rules like these.

View on HN

> but what about companies that are so large that they effectively control the labor market

There is no such company in the world, and if there was, it would almost certainly be an illegal monopoly.

All but one of the rest of your theories are illegal everywhere, and the last one is illegal in many places (or at lease unenforceable).

If you have a problem with companies breaking the law, then you have a problem with law enforcement. Not corporate governance in general.

You're wrong. Look up noncompetes in the US.

The American rule of costs means it doesn't matter if it's not enforceable (which actually it often is). They still have a cause of action to destroy you by the mere act of dragging you through court (and the associated legal costs). And most lowly employees aren't aware of, or willing to test, the enforceability when they get threatened by their ex employer.

The balance of power is rapidly swinging against all but the corporate elite. The Randroids will have us back to serfdom before this decade's end.

Non-competes was the only part of his post that had any merit. But read my comment again, I’m not wrong.

> All but one of the rest of your theories are illegal everywhere, and the last one is illegal in many places (or at lease unenforceable).

> All but one of the rest of your theories are illegal everywhere

The definition of "monopoly" varies widely even within the USA, and enforcement of antitrust issues generally depends on who has political power.

If a company has market control and is monopolistic, but no one with power actually prosecutes them for their behavior, then is what they did actually "illegal"? Whether something is legal depends on both the written law, as well as how it is enforced.

>> but what about companies that are so large that they effectively control the labor market

> There is no such company in the world, and if there was, it would almost certainly be an illegal monopoly.

Funny wording, it's like saying "nothing bad as happening, but if there was, it would be illegal." My original point is that yes, there is bad stuff happening, there are many monopolies, but no one is doing much about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com