Dire Constraint and Work

In law, dire constraint represents the basic concept of a mugging when discussing a contract wherein the situation is the prime determinant of the validity of a contract.  At this point we can start asking questions.  One group of those questions has to discuss the limits of a reasonable expectation of rationality where work is concerned.

Work, as we know it today, is a little different from what it was in the past.  At one time an employment contract included those unwritten rules of conduct that defined decent treatment of an individual employee.  These unwritten rules were expanded on in writing through the FLSA (the Fair Labor Standards Act).  But can we say that the FLSA went far enough?

Let's consider one situation where the FLSA may apply, and see if it does apply:

Let's take, for example, a theoretical woman entering the job market at a low wage employer.  Without a work history, and without access to resources to afford, even in debt, the basic contributions to her own transportation to and from work.  Let's say that she uses community resources in the form of loans to afford that transit to her position at a fixed place of business, perhaps a restaurant.

Let's say she performs beyond expectations in her position.  Completes all required training at the place of business where she is employed.  Let's then say that her employers require her to travel 50 miles one way to a training seminar that is only available for one day, which her employers notify her of that same day.  She cannot afford the trip to the external training site as she makes minimum wage.  All her wages go to surviving long enough to return to work.  The employer nevertheless imposes the threat of terminating her employment if she does not attend the seminar.

FLSA only states that an employer is required to pay for time in training.  It does not state that time in transit need be paid, nor does it provide for renumeration within such a small journey, nor does it suggest that she be compensated for travel expenses, nor does it require a time frame short enough to defer the actual cost.  Nevertheless, the scenario presents a dire constraint.  The figurative gun to her head is the loss of her low wage job.  Their coercive tactics are unlawful even if they are not spelled out within the FLSA or other state or federal law.

There is a trend growing in this country.  A derision of laborers, and an alignment of work-for-pay as a system of fealty.  As if workers were feudal vassals, expected to defend the honor, and the profitability of the company for which they work or else.

At what point are we going to say, "This qualifies as dire constraint.  The threat is real, and was communicated by an agent of the company.  No such contract can be enforced and damages should be levied"?

Are there circumstances that require termination of contract?  Yes, there obviously are.  But to suggest that a person who works for minimum wage can effectively defend their own interests against a multinational conglomerate is ludicrous.  Law should err on the side of the employee who has the least resources and can bring to bear the least able defense.  Nevertheless, in this country might now makes right.  If they can physically force an employee to do something, or do so by merely threatening their employment opportunity, then they may.

How is that in any way freedom?  As if freedom to choose one's Machiavellian master is a freedom at all.  It is a false choice and thus no contractual obligations can be enforced.

At what point did America become the corporate state?  Was I asleep when corporate interests were handed a figurative gun and the permission to use it as they will?  Was I gone when the law became something other than a system of negotiation to normalize relations between two parties?

Normalizing relations, in America, now means handing the criminals the keys to their cages and arming them with the tools to perform their crimes.  No wonder rape is such a problem here.  Exploitation, connivance, and coercion are part of our culture now.

It is a culture I do not like, and will always fight against to the best of my ability.