|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:A bill in Idaho just went into effect today that legalizes any non-compete contract unless it prevents an employee from being employed at all. It also allows them to enforce non-compete contracts for employees trying to leave for a better job in a field that is not directly related to their non-compete contract. So, your employer can literally hold you hostage if they don't want you to leave and you need the job. How the hell do people justify this?
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
I have read this a bunch of times and am still not sure exactly what he is trying to say.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Old James posted:How the hell do people justify this? "Workers should not have rights, they should worship the company for granting them a paycheck."
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:I have read this a bunch of times and am still not sure exactly what he is trying to say. He's referring to the 36% approval rating, saying it's "nearly 40%", and then saying that's really not that bad at all, and besides, that poll is inaccurate, so it's probably not right anyway. So he's giving himself credit for an inaccurate poll he's rounding up. It's a stupid loving thing to say from beginning to end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Old James posted:How the hell do people justify this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
I think the most frustrating part of the whole Democratic scheme poo poo is that I'm pretty certain that if Hilary won, she'd probably do as much as she can to stop any investigation of Trump and the Russians since it would just seem as petty, partisan revenge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Old James posted:How the hell do people justify this? Protecting industry secrets and giving leverage to employers who make the capital investment to train employees and provide them with information.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think the most frustrating part of the whole Democratic scheme poo poo is that I'm pretty certain that if Hilary won, she'd probably do as much as she can to stop any investigation of Trump and the Russians since it would just seem as petty, partisan revenge. Definitely. If Trump wasn't president no one would know about any of this stuff. They'd be too busy screaming about how the election was rigged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Old James posted:How the hell do people justify this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
i wonder at this point how many senators are extorting mcconnell for their vote i like to think it's at least 8. make me feel good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:There's no chance that law holds up in court. Why is that the case for this and not the slightly less evil existing non-competes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Protecting industry secrets and giving leverage to employers who make the capital investment to train employees and provide them with information. The guy who is always saying Hail Satan lives in Idaho, so I'd guess he can comment. I bet the problem within any sector with real job prospects is that employers in Idaho pay "in line with the cost of living" and are shocked when their now experienced hires move on to much higher paying jobs next door in Washington (or in California). As usual, it is terrible business people trying to be protected from the market when it turns against them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:There's no chance that law holds up in court. We just need someone to fight a long, expensive lawsuit to prove it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:genos steaks is a reactionary right wing shithole though so that's not really that indicative of much Whoah, are 8 tracks and salmon suits back in again? Because if Geno's steaks are any good it must be thirty loving years ago. https://billypenn.com/2016/12/16/introducing-the-ultimate-philly-cheesesteak-winner/ Lost in the first round to someone who lost in the second round. Go check out Barry's or Delasandro's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think the most frustrating part of the whole Democratic scheme poo poo is that I'm pretty certain that if Hilary won, she'd probably do as much as she can to stop any investigation of Trump and the Russians since it would just seem as petty, partisan revenge. She would have to. Investigating an opponent she just defeated would look awful, and she'd be fighting off republican impeachment attempts right and left. Of course she'd absolutely cripple the Russian economy in response.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Why is that the case for this and not the slightly less evil existing non-competes? Most non-competes aren't real bad at all. They usually contain provisions that prevent you from working with direct competitors in narrowly defined geographical area. They don't limit your ability to find a new job because you can cross over to a different industry, or work for your competitor in a different job role, or move to another part of the state or region. The Idaho provision seriously limits your ability to change jobs in a way that traditional non-competes do not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Most non-competes aren't real bad at all. They usually contain provisions that prevent you from working with direct competitors in narrowly defined geographical area. They don't limit your ability to find a new job because you can cross over to a different industry, or work for your competitor in a different job role, or move to another part of the state or region. Non-competes are always bad imo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Most non-competes aren't real bad at all. They usually contain provisions that prevent you from working with direct competitors in narrowly defined geographical area. They don't limit your ability to find a new job because you can cross over to a different industry, or work for your competitor in a different job role, or move to another part of the state or region. All non-competes are bad and serve only to assist Capital in keeping wages low. And of course the regulation-hating Libertarians have no problem with them because they're full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Non-competes are always bad imo. Not really. Hiring an employee is a significant investment in which you can learn particular company information regarding future products, clients etc that would be damaging when you take it to a direct competitor within a short timespan. If you're not sure about the non-compete agreement you're being asked to sign, you can ask a lawyer to look it over for you to explain how it will affect you and what changes you should ask for, and the company will almost always pay for this. quote:All non-competes are bad and serve only to assist Capital in keeping wages low. And of course the regulation-hating Libertarians have no problem with them because they're full of poo poo. Yeah, except that you don't have to find work at the company's direct competitor. It doesn't actually reduce your ability to find a better-paying job unlike this Idaho law which explicity prevents you from working, well, pretty much anywhere else. The non-compete agreement serves to protect the company's information. OctaMurk fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Jul 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Why is that the case for this and not the slightly less evil existing non-competes? Many non competes don't hold up. They are less legal barriers and more to scare and extort people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Not really. Hiring an employee is a significant investment in which you can learn particular company information regarding future products, clients etc that would be damaging when you take it to a direct competitor within a short timespan. If you're not sure about the non-compete agreement you're being asked to sign, you can ask a lawyer to look it over for you to explain how it will affect you and what changes you should ask for, and the company will almost always pay for this. Given that the tech industry is surviving somehow in California where non-competes are illegal, I'm sticking with "Non-competes are bad" Even moreso when they're actually indentured servitude agreements like in Idaho
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
For those of you too young to remember Watergate a 1973 column by Art Buchwald describes pretty much the entire Trump playbook for dealing with his endless shitshow. See how many Trumpista excuses you can spot in this list.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Non-competes are always bad imo. Their enforcement in reality is extremely narrow and very rarely brought up. It's way more often used as an empty threat by employers with no intention of actually taking it to court. Their legal justification is fine- part of a job is granting an employee specialized knowledge and intellectual property that gives your company an edge in the market. Non-competes make it so that companies can't just buy up all of a competitors IP by throwing money at the problem. It's only really enforced once you get to upper level employees and there's tons of loopholes to get around them- ie: competitor offers a signing bonus that just so happens to be worth the term of your non-compete expiring. so you 'take a break from work' during that time and start working for your competitor the day it expires.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Not really. Hiring an employee is a significant investment in which you can learn particular company information regarding future products, clients etc that would be damaging when you take it to a direct competitor within a short timespan. If you're not sure about the non-compete agreement you're being asked to sign, you can ask a lawyer to look it over for you to explain how it will affect you and what changes you should ask for, and the company will almost always pay for this. Or you could just pay employees in sensitive positions enough to keep them happy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:Their enforcement in reality is extremely narrow and very rarely brought up. It's way more often used as an empty threat by employers with no intention of actually taking it to court. Their legal justification is fine- part of a job is granting an employee specialized knowledge and intellectual property that gives your company an edge in the market. Non-competes make it so that companies can't just buy up all of a competitors IP by throwing money at the problem. It's only really enforced once you get to upper level employees and there's tons of loopholes to get around them- ie: competitor offers a signing bonus that just so happens to be worth the term of your non-compete expiring. so you 'take a break from work' during that time and start working for your competitor the day it expires. Sounds like Capital are using empty threats of state-endorsed reprisals against Labor and that the practice should be ended full-stop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Or you could just pay employees in sensitive positions enough to keep them happy. It's really bizarre how "pay people more" isn't even on the table as an option for so many companies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:For those of you too young to remember Watergate a 1973 column by Art Buchwald describes pretty much the entire Trump playbook for dealing with his endless shitshow. See how many Trumpista excuses you can spot in this list. That's a few find/replace functions away from being a 2017 article. The more things change...
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Hey guys, if you're unemployed and can't make ends meet, be sure to hire a lawyer to look over everything you sign first
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Airconswitch posted:Hey guys, if you're unemployed and can't make ends meet, be sure to hire a lawyer to look over everything you sign first Every company where I've asked them to pay for a lawyer to look over the agreements they'd like me to sign before I sign anything, has agreed to do so. If they don't agree to pay for this, then that's probably not a place you'd like to work. Obviously this doesn't apply to working at wal-mart or whatever, but you're not signing NCAs at wal-mart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Not really. Hiring an employee is a significant investment in which you can learn particular company information regarding future products, clients etc that would be damaging when you take it to a direct competitor within a short timespan. Hmm another liberal apologizing for capital restricting the free flow of labor when it suits them, almost like liberals are just right wingers with a fancier vocabulary. OctaMurk posted:
I'm sure this happens all the time in real life it doesn't OctaMurk posted:Every company where I've asked them to pay for a lawyer to look over the agreements they'd like me to sign before I sign anything, has agreed to do so. If they don't agree to pay for this, then that's probably not a place you'd like to work. Obviously this doesn't apply to working at wal-mart or whatever, but you're not signing NCAs at wal-mart. Not everyone is some kind of euphoric software developer, dingus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:...but you're not signing NCAs at wal-mart. Not yet... 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
the protestant work ethic destroyed this country.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:Whoah, are 8 tracks and salmon suits back in again? Because if Geno's steaks are any good it must be thirty loving years ago. I've never had Barry's. I pretty much stopped looking around when I found Delasandro's. Might have to check them out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:I'm sure this happens all the time in real life it doesn't It actually does, and if a company refuses to pay for this, that tells you a lot about the company. Have you ever had to review and sign a non-compete agreement before? Did you not ask for this option?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Every company where I've asked them to pay for a lawyer to look over the agreements they'd like me to sign before I sign anything, has agreed to do so. If they don't agree to pay for this, then that's probably not a place you'd like to work. Obviously this doesn't apply to working at wal-mart or whatever, but you're not signing NCAs at wal-mart. perhaps you should consider that the idaho law extends to hiring positions where a company would rather move on to the next low level manager application then pay out of pocket for a third party attorney to decode their own nda to a potential hire
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
skylined! posted:perhaps you should consider that the idaho law extends to hiring positions where a company would rather move on to the next low level manager application then pay out of pocket for a third party attorney to decode their own nda to a potential hire perhaps you should consider that like everyone else in this thread, I think the Idaho law is lovely for that reason and others, and I have been talking about regular non-compete agreements that tend to be non-enforceable or strictly limited
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
jimmy johns asks employees to sign non competes i am sure they're going to shell out a few grand for a couple hours of an attorneys time so their delivery drivers feel good about the nca you know, instead of moving on to the next person that doesn't request that
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
skylined! posted:jimmy johns asks employees to sign non competes Lmao you're being completely disingenuous at this point
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:It actually does, and if a company refuses to pay for this, that tells you a lot about the company. Have you ever had to review and sign a non-compete agreement before? Did you not ask for this option? Yes, I have signed multiple noncompetes. Hell, I even signed one when I was 23 after the fact when the employer pushed them on everyone post facto as a condition of remaining employed, which was a blatant violation of contract law. I'm sure you'll blame 23 year olds for not being experts on noncompete law for their first job after college in a professional industry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Or you could just pay employees in sensitive positions enough to keep them happy. I too think that CEOs and other high ranking employees earn way to little. They are basically forced to abandon ship to sell trade secrets to the competition. These laws exists so that a large company can't just poach everyone from their competition to ruin them. In a mild form NCA are a reasonable market restriction. cant cook creole bream fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Jul 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 16:50
|
|
