|
|
|
|
|
|
by moron4hire
3022 days ago
|
|
|
Violence isn't the only way to coerce people into doing things against their interest. If there was an implication that bonuses would be available, or something to the effect, it's unethical to say, "haha, you didn't have an iron-clad contract". Using fine-print in contracts to get one over on people who aren't lawyers is pretty much the textbook definition of unethical. The point people are trying to make is that the people who quit said they were treated unethically. By disputing that it was unethical behavior, you're calling those people liars. Being "more right leaning" doesn't make you an asshole, but calling people liars without evidence does. |
|
|
None of the comments I've replied to describe anything like that. They simply refer to the (paltry) amount. I'm not disputing there's more to the story, I was simply commenting on the bit that's actually in front of me.
> The point people are trying to make is that the people who quit said they were treated unethically. By disputing that it was unethical behavior, you're calling those people liars. Being "more right leaning" doesn't make you an asshole, but calling people liars without evidence does.
I never said they were liars. I said that the $200/month doesn't on its own make the agreement unethical.
Apparently that distinction is beyond the grasp of today's commenters.