He has the freedom to apply to any jobs and employers have the freedom to reject him.
This is a complete strawman, the argument is that legal rights of this person is fully restored in the eye of the government, potential employers can always turn people down for almost any reason.
I'm pretty sure that the first part of the quote doesn't mean what you're implying it does. The right to work and free choice of employment does not make one safe against not being offered a job or being fired from one.
That's a lot of text to say absolutely nothing at all.
At the bottom rung of the skills ladder, there are always more applicants than jobs - you have to count the "overqualified", as they will apply for those same jobs. The bargaining power of the employer in these situations vastly outweighs that of the employee.
Your diversion into coercion is fun, but irrelevant. Someone who needs a job will be at such a disadvantage that the fact that they aren't being forced at gunpoint doesn't matter. The illusion of choice is just that, an illusion.
In addition, if employers are allowed to continue these practices, they will spread irrespective of whether they're a good idea or not. Pretty soon, you don't have a choice at all. There are no companies left that don't violate your rights.
That's kind of similar to oppose the employee status because eventually employers will meet candidates who don't demand the benefits required by a legal contract. That's why that is simply illegal.
But you could say also that the employer needs a worker, and also isn't really freely entering into the contract. Utter nonsense! Both parties freely enter into the agreement. You might not have the freedom not to have a job, but you do have the freedom to choose which job to take. That freedom means that nobody can pay you less then you are worth, else you'll leave. Therefore nobody employer can exploit you. (That is pay you less then you're worth.)
The counterargument is that you are welcome not to do business with companies that require you to accept such a condition, just as you are welcome not to accept a job with such a condition. Unemployment rates are about as low as they ever get right now; work somewhere else. Freedom means that you can voluntarily enter into arrangements that others think are a bad idea. Is it worth a little extra pay to accept that condition? A lot of extra pay? The market will figure it out. Banning the practice, on the other hand, removes a bit of freedom.
Of course, that argument is largely baloney, but it's not straight up insane.
The doctrine is not absolute and there are many cases where it is applied seemingly inconsistently. Rust V. Sullivan probably being one of the most notable, where the court upheld a physician's First Amendment right for referring abortions could be constrained on condition of federal funding for their practice.
If a person is aware that he/she is waiving their rights, and is not some accidental waiver, the government is not being deceptive or coercive, the person is free to reject the offer from the government without sanction, and the person waiving their right has the capacity to understand that they are doing - then there is no (generally) constitutional violation.
In the context of employment or government contracts, the government does not guarantee employment to every person. The fact that a potential employee (for example) may be impoverished and desperate for a paying job does not make the government’s conditions for the job coercive, unless the government
specifically created the person’s unemployment.
"Except in this case nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head."
No, I flat out reject that notion. The fact that one must have a job to survive in this world removes the ability to chose "not having a job". The illusion of choice does not mean that all employment agreements are purely consensual, and as such there need to be many safeguards in place to prevent exploitation.
Employment is a partnership, not servitude. That means the employer needs to convince the employee to work for them. I'm fine being rejected by a place that will treat me like shit.
A belief is not a very compelling argument. Frankly, in the context of a job market I see both as interference.
But whatever our beliefs, we already have sets of rules, legal and social, which limit people's choices in the job market. The ability to hire people is a privilege which comes with responsibilities, part of which is a responsibility to society. This is why developed countries have minimum wages.
Now as to what extent or whether at all, you can place limitations on employers without placing limitations on employees, now that is an argument worth exploring.
This is a complete strawman, the argument is that legal rights of this person is fully restored in the eye of the government, potential employers can always turn people down for almost any reason.
reply