It's the first time I see someone speak of themself in the
second person.
Which still leaves an awful lot of other companies they can go work for.
... and such companies damn well justify before a judge the amounts they demand as payback.
Really?
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).
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?
Way to misinterpret. Employers and employees are equal under the law. Serfs and their masters were not.
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.
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.