11–20 of 395 posts
Using "poaching" to describe a company hiring someone from another company, needs to die. Companies do not own people. It is strictly a business relationship. I think that the US as a whole should follow California in outlawing non-competes. It definitely has been shown to be workable.
The only reason big companies offer health insurance is because it limits employees's freedom. It would be easy for the Fortune 100 or 200 in unison agree to eliminate health care and provide a higher salaries. It would make the companies more competitive globally and it would free them from a whole lot of other nonsense, but they don't drop healthcare. The reason they don't droop healthcare is because healthcare and pre-existing conditions limit employee options and it suppresses wages. Also if there was universal healthcare it would be easier to start small companies and attract employees, those small business would be competing for employees against big companies on equal footing.
Healthcare is a racket limiting not just healthcare but freedom.
Health insurance is also part of the rigged labor market. The only reason big companies offer health insurance is because it limits employees's freedom. It would be easy for the Fortune 100 or 200 in unison agree to eliminate health care and provide a higher salaries. It would make the companies more competitive globally and it would free them from a whole lot of other nonsense, but they don't drop healthcare. The re…
Health insurance is also part of the rigged labor market. The only reason big companies offer health insurance is because it limits employees's freedom. It would be easy for the Fortune 100 or 200 in unison agree to eliminate health care and provide a higher salaries. It would make the companies more competitive globally and it would free them from a whole lot of other nonsense, but they don't drop healthcare. The re…
The really annoying thing about noncompetes is that they're usually at the discretion of the employer. You might be in a situation where you have a 12 month noncompete and nobody wants to hire you 12 months in advance, but then your former employer terminates your noncompete within a month and stops paying you.
If they terminated the noncompete, that's excellent! I'm thinking you've made a typo. ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they terminated the noncompete, that's excellent! I'm thinking you've made a typo. ;-)
It's not excellent because they stop paying you if they terminate the noncompete, but you also can't look for a new job until the very end of your noncompete period.
Since this should be illegal, or at least illegal absent some reasonable compensation for giving up the right to freely seek alternative employment (e.g. a big retention bonus), presumably our politicians offering "regulatory relief" are to blame?
If the employee was terminated the non-compete should be terminated as well.
Noncompetes, viewed in a vacuum, are lopsided towards the employer by design. Which is why they are (ideally) counterbalanced by increased pay or other concessions to the employee.
My last company's noncompete had a really nice twist: Instead of banning me from seeking employment at a competitor altogether, it instead granted my employer the right, to, at their discretion, compel me to delay starting at a competitor for a certain amount of time. However, in order to do so they would also have to pay my salary over that period.