Hemel's Argument Against Confidentiality Agreement

Everyone has a reputation they usually like a favorable that they have one that benefits them. Large companies need to be presented as nice to their employees otherwise people quit. In the past women being harassed might have not been a big deal, since women were considered objects and subordinate to men. Today women and men are standing up to give women the equal rights and opportunities as men, so getting accused of sexual harassment of an employee is a large frowned upon issue. Therefore, companies have to hide their mistakes, particularly ones involving sexual harassment, using confidentiality agreements. Daniel Hemel through his essay wants to encourage people and lawmakers to take action against the confidentiality agreements. He gives multiple perspectives and ideas to help the audience can energy to make sure there are limits to these agreements for the safety of the employees. Money is a very important and powerful item in today’s economy. Those who have money have power, they get whatever they want, whenever they want it. Large companies such as Weinstein’s have lots of money, therefore can pay their victims of harassment off to not speak, or can sue them for violating a contract. Hemel uses this information to give the reader a reason that they should despise the companies for allowing the harassment in the first place, and going as far to pay people off or forbidding people to hide the crime. To make a difference for the case, lawmakers have to think through ideas that could work. Hemel is the essay already gives his audience multiple ideas and the pros and cons of each of the options, therefore Hemel doesn’t want people to slack off, he gives the audience no excuse other than to take immediate action. He presents the ideas already produced, the benefits the agreements make for both sides, in effect the reader has all the general information to present a case to help victims of the agreement. A person can relate this to when they were a teen, everyone at some point tries to convince their parents to give them money, or permission to do an activity. I for one, use the same argumentative strategy as Hemel to convince my parents of an event I want to go to, or to give me some cash. I exhibit everything they need in order to make a decision that benefits my cause, ending in they have no excuse but to …show more content…
Hemel in order to get his audience to take action against the agreement, he must make the reader see what terrible events have happened because of the arrangement it gives. Furthermore, he needs to be seen as not entirely involved in the case, that would depict him to emotionally attached to make common sense of what’s happening. With this in mind, Hemel shows the reader that the agreement does give benefits to the people it hurts. Additionally he puts a limit to the amount of emotionally connotative words included in the essay, using just enough to have the reader feel negatively towards the confidentiality agreement. Hemel furthermore, must use words that convey emotion because his information alone would seem cold and inhumane, by adding in his emotions he can appeal to the reader’s heart and make them feel pity for the victims, and wish to stop the