I am not arguing about what is or isn't. I am arguing what should and shouldn't be.

Contracts that ask people to give up certain freedoms should be illegal. Doesn't matter if people can choose to not sign. The very fact that such contracts exist in the first place is an indictment of the employers.

No it’s not, that’s literally what contracts are.

Sign here, follows these rules and perform these tasks and you will be compensated by this amount.

I’m 29 years old, I can legally drink alcohol and have every right to consume it, but I can’t show up to work intoxicated. I think that’s a completely reasonable clause in a contract.

It is. But asking you to refrain from exercising your freedom isn't.

You seem to think that since employees can in theory choose not to sign, that it means it's ok for employers to add all kinds of unethical stuff in the contract.

Unethical and illegal are two completely different things.

Again, what does this have to do with Kyrie?

I know that. I am just saying that if an employer does something unethical, then logically we need to respond by making what they do illegal.

But ethics is largely subjective

Im sure you and I have a different opinion of what is ethical and what is not

What does this have to do with Kyrie

This is fine and we can hash it out.

Is there any reason you think it's ethical for employers to ask potential employees to refrain from exercising their freedoms?

This post was edited by JessiWan on Nov 10 2022 11:10am

Of course, il give you an example

Most professional athletes have a clause in their contract that prevents them from doing anything “dangerous” outside of the work place.

I’m sure it’s more specific than just “dangerous” I’m just keeping it short.

Example if Tom Brady goes sky diving and breaks his legs, the team could potentially have grounds to terminate the contract / not pay him if those actions breached the contract.

This is done to protect the employers investment they’ve made in the individual..

These are standard in most athlete contracts, and in my opinion are completely reasonable.

Similar to that, some contracts can prevent the payout of life insurance coverage if the death is caused by excessively dangerous activities like skydiving / Basejumping / race car driving. (I think this is standard in most life insurance coverage plans)

All completely reasonable imo

This post was edited by SharpNips on Nov 10 2022 11:19am

But this is not analogous to what we are discussing. You need to prove how employees engaging in certain political behaviors threatens the employer's investment or tarnishes their brand in any way. Another issue I have with it is that the wording is often so vague that it can be interpreted in any way the employer likes.

What “political behaviours” are you referring to?

you seem to have a pretty specific example in mind but not willing to share it?

This post was edited by SharpNips on Nov 10 2022 11:30am