Because they are market actors at one end of transaction. This is not about "rights" other than property rights - nobody is being forced in to anything here - you don't have a right to work for someone, they have a right to refuse your service for whatever reason - plain and simple. Unfortunately there are laws that restrict this freedoms because most voters are workers and not employers.
You keep talking about "employers", but that isn't what you mean, and it's dishonest. The generic "employer" has few restrictions at all. In most jurisdictions, I am quite free, as an individual acting in my personal capacity, to hire and fire, for example, a maid, with very few restrictions at all.
What you are talking about are corporations. Corporations are artificial constructs that exist at the whim of society. They have no inherent rights, property or otherwise. They have those privileges which we choose to explicitly bestow upon them.
Your next point will be that corporations are made up of people and invested in by people. This is true, but irrelevant. The corporation is a distinct entity, and the epic disaster that is limited liability ensures that its effect on the market is skewed from that of a human being.
Corporations are not people, and should not be treated as such.
>The generic "employer" has few restrictions at all. In most jurisdictions, I am quite free, as an individual acting in my personal capacity, to hire and fire, for example, a maid, with very few restrictions at all.
That may be true in the US to some extent, but it's nowhere near true in Europe (where I'm from). Labor laws apply to everyone and protect labor in various way from competition.
You keep talking about "rights" - where am I claiming any rights for "corporations" ? Corporations are simply property in this case, preventing corporations from making these agreements is violating the rights of owners to manage their property.
Considering these are US companies making an agreement about US employees, where else is relevant?
> Corporations are simply property in this case, preventing corporations from making these agreements is violating the rights of owners to manage their property.
By taking advantage of the corporate structure society has over-generously granted them, the investors have agreed to surrender their rights.
They can get most of them back by dispensing with the corporate structure and acting in their own personal capacities, without the market-distorting characteristics granted to corporations.
