Now you are being very, very silly.
It's the first time I see someone speak of themself in the
second person.
a. Many companies have a clause in their small print that you cannot work for a rival within X no. of months/years of leaving.
Which still leaves an awful lot of other companies they can go work for.
b. Many trainee professionals get study support on the condition they stay with the employer up to three years (I heard this was the case in Australia for student accountants) after qualifying, or you have to pay it all back.
... and such companies damn well justify before a judge the amounts they demand as payback.
c. Depends what you mean by this. It probably applies to both landowner and serf.
Really?
For example, my grandmother had to get permission from her parents to marry my grandfather. They refused permission for a prior suitor.
You carefully avoid mentioning the reason. I can make a guess. Under the Dutch Civil Code, art. 99, of 1838 - which was valid until 1970 - children under 30 years needed parental permission for a marriage. My grandmother didn't get permission either, hence my grandparents eloped to France and got married there. (France also had a requirement for parental permission beyond adulthood, but to a lesser age).
Harry had to get permission from the Queen to marry Meghan.
He could also not have gotten it and given up his right to become British Monarch. And that's really the only job where such an anomaly exists.
Really, you compare this extended parental permission - you know, permission from the two people who raised you and are responsible for your well-being - to serfdom where serfs lifelong had to get permission to marry from their masters?
d. In any contract the interests of the contractor and contractee are bound to be differentiated.
Way to misinterpret. Employers and employees are equal under the law. Serfs and their masters were not.
e. I am sure your master could not get away with crimes against your person, even under feudalism. One of my forebears was subjected to canon law for having a dispute during a church service, with another member of the congregation. She was fined X amount. She was a noblewoman. Had she been one of the commoners, she would have been made to sit by the door in penance.
You have no way to prove that hypothetical, and anyway, your example is
canon law, and the infraction of the dispute is not against another person but against the church.
f. Have you heard of TUPE? In the UK, this refers to your employers changing because the company you work for has been taken over by another company. You can decline, but then you are out of work.
TUPE requires the acquiring company to honour the job contracts with the employees that the acquired company had signed. That's quite another thing than a master who can dispose of serfs as he sees fit and sell them to someone else as if they're property.
Really, every single one of your counter arguments is a fallacy.
