|
Rex-Goliath posted:Source? I haven't heard of that happening. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/business/noncompete-clauses.html quote:In 2011, Timothy Gonzalez started working as a labor hand for a company called Singley Construction. He was 18 years old and already a father, and the extent of his education was a high school equivalency test. In other words, he needed money and did not have many options. (Also I generally do not mind NDAs --- modulo usual whistle blower protection for illegality )
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
TheScott2K posted:The people working at the startup could have gone to work for the big company in the first place for reasons of stability, starting salary, and benefits. They chose the startup because they wanted to be on the ground floor of something they could have equity in. If the startup isn't giving equity, then they're directly competing with the big company on the same terms for employees, which is dumb and bad and they should go out of business. What a bad example that was. Fair enough. But the large company would obviously pay more to the poachees, than what they had gotten if they went there in the first place. Once the competition is dead you can find some excuse to fire them anyway. But I admit that there are better ways to prevent such business practices.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Atomicated posted:Somehow I don't think we're going to see 15 trotted out that often this time. I would rather have a crook than a fool. Unfortunately, we got both 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I'm really nervous about Trump calling the CBO 'fake news'. I mean, it's all pretty worrying but the CBO is neither fake nor news. The writing on the wall here is that he's going to start calling judicial rulings 'fake news', right? It's about in the same ballpark. It's pretty likely that he doesn't actually know what the CBO is. He might think it's an actual media corporation like CBS.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
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. That's the most frustrating and also simultaneously the best part. Putin may have contributed to loving us, the people of the United States, over, but he didn't ever mean for Trump to win and in accidentally helping to bring that about, he hosed himself as well. Not today, but the Democratic Party of fourteen months ago honestly didn't give two figs for Russia as a foreign policy priority, and now they are more or less vying with the entire Middle East for the top slot. Good job, you evil oligarchic fucker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I'm really nervous about Trump calling the CBO 'fake news'. I mean, it's all pretty worrying but the CBO is neither fake nor news. The writing on the wall here is that he's going to start calling judicial rulings 'fake news', right? It's about in the same ballpark. he already called the first judge to (rightfully) strike down the muslim ban a "so-called" judge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
The WH criticized the CBO after the original House bill was first scored. They are trying again to claim that the CBO is somehow biased but that attack is failing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/886624498866376704 Nobody knew international diplomacy would be this complicated
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
the best people https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/886631577098256384
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Why can't these people realize how crappy human beings they are
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
He did that before re: if Trump was being investigated, lol.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Omar is a long cat.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/business/noncompete-clauses.html Yeah this stuff is absurd and reading the article it seems like some states are realizing this and banning the practice while others are going 'oh wow, perfect!' and leaning into it harder. really doubt we'll get any response from this administration on this either
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The WH criticized the CBO after the original House bill was first scored. They are trying again to claim that the CBO is somehow biased but that attack is failing. Good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Old James posted:How the hell do people justify this? gently caress You I Want More. FlamingLiberal posted:There's no chance that law holds up in court. The 5 conservatives on the SCOTUS will absolutely uphold this law. Though feel free to explain how you think it won't end as a 5-4, or worse, ruling in favor of the law. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are all fiercely pro-corporation and I'm pretty sure even Kennedy is going to have no issue with a law that basically holds employees hostage because they could've just not taken the job or some other bullshit. Keep in mind we're likely going to see the death of (public) unions in the very near future thanks to this SCOTUS. NDAs are fine, and make perfect sense. Non-competes are pretty much bullshit. 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 the company doing the hiring is worried about their new hire getting poached its because they know they aren't offering enough to keep that person from jumping ship. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:Fair enough. But the large company would obviously pay more to the poachees, than what they had gotten if they went there in the first place. Once the competition is dead you can find some excuse to fire them anyway. Yeah the only level where this stuff actually has a material impact is at the C-level and just under it, which is what these were originally for. I think a combination of making the requirements much more stringent plus some sort of 'use it or lose it' clause similar to copyright infringement would solve most of the problems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Just so we're clear, did Trump himself have SS protection at the time of the meeting?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
horse mans posted:Just so we're clear, did Trump himself have SS protection at the time of the meeting? The meeting was soon after Trump clinched the primary, so yes
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
horse mans posted:Just so we're clear, did Trump himself have SS protection at the time of the meeting? Yeah I think once you're an official candidate you get protection. It extends to your family if you win iirc
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
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. Number 11 - my jaw dropped when I heard this argument used in earnest last week I think it was Jonah Goldberg, but could have been some other R shitheel edit: Party Plane Jones your tweetdumps are the best thing about this thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If the company doing the hiring is worried about their new hire getting poached its because they know they aren't offering enough to keep that person from jumping ship. Yeah, but like if a company offers in depth training and specialization then the person should just jump ship to the company that can pay more because they pay none for training.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, but like if a company offers in depth training and specialization then the person should just jump ship to the company that can pay more because they pay none for training. That doesn't happen though. Tightwad companies that don't train also pay like poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, but like if a company offers in depth training and specialization then the person should just jump ship to the company that can pay more because they pay none for training. If the company doing the hiring is worried about their new hire getting poached its because they know they aren't offering enough to keep that person from jumping ship. Any company that invests a bunch of money training its employees but still doesn't invest in payment said employees well only has themselves to blame.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, but like if a company offers in depth training and specialization then the person should just jump ship to the company that can pay more because they pay none for training. It's already legal to put clawback provisions on training expenses ("if you leave within six months of completing your employer-sponsored degree/certificate, you must pay back the cost of training"). Using it as a justification for noncompetes is the same kind of thinking that says unpaid internships aren't bad, because just think of the valuable experience and exposure those interns are getting. On-the-job training, where the employee is contributing to the bottom line while they learn, is not a meaningful expense. Yes, they're somewhat less productive while they're learning; if they were senior and didn't need it, you'd be paying them more anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:
Internships are pretty good when they were what they were supposed to be, a school class that you take for a limited time in an actual business doing the thing you want to do, they got bad when they turned into weird unpaid labor for job seekers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
This gives me hope because if all they have is Nixon's playbook we've seen how well that turns out for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, but like if a company offers in depth training and specialization then the person should just jump ship to the company that can pay more because they pay none for training. No, stupid. If you can't afford to lose them then you make it so you won't, not so they can't leave. Why are so many people having so much trouble with this? Wages are depressed, and they aren't going to rise without taking away their excuses to keep them low.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
On the non-compete front, I used to work as a software developer for Company A that was big-ish in their industry that used this custom programming language. Other large companies which were Company A's customers had to pay this company to get their employees trained on their ridiculous custom poo poo (and I say that because it was poo poo). So, of course, Company A made all their programmers sign non-competes. If you were going to another industry, they wouldn't bother. But every so often, one of Company A's customers would have to make hires to expand their internal development divisions, and when doing that, they either had to hire former employees of Company A or hire new people and pay Company A huge money to train the new hires on their system. This was basically the entire reason for the non-compete, because when the customer companies would come calling with significant raises (because Company A paid for poo poo), Company A would invoke the non-compete and block people from taking those jobs. And then when they did that, they'd send around emails bragging about how they did that poo poo to fire a warning shot across the bow to their existing programmers, that don't you dare consider those offers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
mistaya posted:This gives me hope because if all they have is Nixon's playbook we've seen how well that turns out for them. Let me tell you I would love to see a Nixon-like outcome for Trump. I remember when my mom stored away a newspaper announcing Nixon's resignation and I would go out and buy a newspaper for the first time this decade if it announced Trump being swept out the door. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Company A needs to accept the reality of attrition and either pay their people properly or build a more efficient training pipeline.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Good. The white house made a little attack ad calling the CBO 'innaccurate.' https://twitter.com/ObsoleteDogma/status/885198209668329473  Post 9-11 User posted:Omar is a long cat. That is a good cat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Company A needs to accept the reality of attrition and either pay their people properly or build a more efficient training pipeline. That place now has a super ugly reputation in the software development sector locally. Just mentioning their name to someone in the same profession here will bring a story of how they or someone they knew or worked with had horror stories of that place. When I went to work there, they were in the middle of a thing where they were talking about how they were going to hire people with more professional experience and try to rely less on fresh out of college hires to try to improve quality. Then like 7 months later they did a round of layoffs and fired basically everyone hired in that vein.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:No, stupid. If you can't afford to lose them then you make it so you won't, not so they can't leave. Good luck doing that with a Republican government.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:Good luck doing that with a Republican government. Okay?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
MacArthur is one of them. He was the one who added the crucial amendment denying pre-existing conditions and got repeatedly clowned at a Town Hall.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Trade secrets are a whole other thing, and can be protected without telling labor "you can't work for X for Y years" Ah yeah that is dumb. I work at an ad agency and our non-compete says you're allowed to work at a rival firm, but for the first year - if any client for current firm goes to new firm... you can't work on it for that year. They also know it's pretty unenforcable. They are essentially trying to say "hey if you leave please don't steal clients for the first year... or use internal knowledge of your experience here to lure them away." Of course this happened after a guy quit and took our most lucrative client with him. Which is stupid because a client can do whatever the gently caress they please.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Alexey__Kovalev/status/886649741911764993 Succinct.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Now cut off his wifi. Do it
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
mistaya posted:This gives me hope because if all they have is Nixon's playbook we've seen how well that turns out for them. Trump isn't bound by traditional political process and etiquette the way Nixon was. He doesn't have the good sense to know when to quit, either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 19:19
|
|
