Do you find that has a negative affect on your interactions with society? I can't imagine I could find a dentist or doctor that didn't have patient contractual obligations that I'd rather not agree to.
This is the problem, really. Don't like some terms in e.g. a mobile phone agreement? Take it or leave it. If you can't mobilize a mass of people to join you in rejecting it (you almost certainly can't, even if everyone hates the terms) your choice is to sign or go to another carrier (who will have the same problematic clauses in their contract). It'll hurt you more to be without a phone than it'll hurt the company not to take some special snowflake contract with you and get your tiny monthly payment in return. This is broadly true for loans, employment contracts, even doctors'/hospitals' contracts.
For the overwhelming majority of business interactions most individuals participate in, they're the weaker party by a large margin. The notion that any substantial portion of contracts and business agreements are being freely made between equals is a fiction. Degrees of coercion are everywhere. Consider: it's common to require candidates for low-wage jobs to take a piss test. If they say no, someone else will agree because they need the money. The business can afford to be at 98% capacity (or just overwork their employees) for another couple of days—an individual may not be able to afford an income of $0.00 for another couple of days. The job is worth more to the candidate than the (particular) candidate is to the employer. Agree, but insist your potential manager show you the results of a piss test, too? Laughed out of the room. Equals? Not even close.
Yadda yadda yadda this is the reason we have laws and don't just rely on contacts for everything. Also why unions exist (and why they must require membership, or else be largely ineffective) for employment issues specifically.
In the phone market, increasingly, you can go non-contract with pay-as-you-go / prepaid SIMs.
What's starting to emerge is the concept of a WiFi-only device which is usable for voice / messaging when within network range, but not otherwise.
I agree with you generally vis-a-vis power relations -- that's really a highly underappreciated element of economics, though Smith's own second discussion of wealth begins: "Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power".
More generally, organizing politically to prohibit such measures is necessary.
Not merely "making them unlawful to use for discrimination", as there are plenty of other unrestricted grounds for discrimination. But prohibiting outright.
ashark|11 years ago
For the overwhelming majority of business interactions most individuals participate in, they're the weaker party by a large margin. The notion that any substantial portion of contracts and business agreements are being freely made between equals is a fiction. Degrees of coercion are everywhere. Consider: it's common to require candidates for low-wage jobs to take a piss test. If they say no, someone else will agree because they need the money. The business can afford to be at 98% capacity (or just overwork their employees) for another couple of days—an individual may not be able to afford an income of $0.00 for another couple of days. The job is worth more to the candidate than the (particular) candidate is to the employer. Agree, but insist your potential manager show you the results of a piss test, too? Laughed out of the room. Equals? Not even close.
Yadda yadda yadda this is the reason we have laws and don't just rely on contacts for everything. Also why unions exist (and why they must require membership, or else be largely ineffective) for employment issues specifically.
dredmorbius|11 years ago
What's starting to emerge is the concept of a WiFi-only device which is usable for voice / messaging when within network range, but not otherwise.
I agree with you generally vis-a-vis power relations -- that's really a highly underappreciated element of economics, though Smith's own second discussion of wealth begins: "Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power".
More generally, organizing politically to prohibit such measures is necessary.
Not merely "making them unlawful to use for discrimination", as there are plenty of other unrestricted grounds for discrimination. But prohibiting outright.
dredmorbius|11 years ago
I'll note that there's discussions that happen as well. WallMart's story on HN had a substantial discussion of their mandatory drug test requirement.