81–90 of 95 posts
Note how they say this is to protect employee rights.
"right to work" "freedom of contract" "work makes you free" It's a playbook to misdirect with language like that.
Non-competes are interesting. I don't like them. At all. Yet, from personal experience, I fully understand why companies might consider them to be important. Here's my experience, going back about two decades: I had been doing all the selling for my tech startup, this, on top of handling all product engineering, manufacturing and, well, everything else. It was time to get a sales person to take-on that role. I put it…
Think about the risks that the employees take for the company (they are not just time risks). They have to relocate themselves, and even worse move their entire family and kids away from their friends & schools, sell their houses often at loss / break leases, and then join your venture with just at will employment contract, which means that at any-time you can just tell them to go f themselves.
So no your complaint is not calibrated. Sorry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be clear: Your is stance that non-compete and stay-or-pay agreements do not interfere with employees' labor rights and that broadening their applicability is good ? Because that is what happened.
Ah, I fell prey to the double negative and reread the article. I'll leave my comment for histories sake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please cite.
I’m not the person you are replying to, but California had a ballot initiative that would finally eliminated slavery in California in 2024. It failed. If you think the US completely banned slavery, or that slavery is unpopular, you’re misinformed.
Non-competes are interesting. I don't like them. At all. Yet, from personal experience, I fully understand why companies might consider them to be important. Here's my experience, going back about two decades: I had been doing all the selling for my tech startup, this, on top of handling all product engineering, manufacturing and, well, everything else. It was time to get a sales person to take-on that role. I put it…
Were all your employees blank slates when they joined, or did they "use" their previous employers to gain the skills required to become hirable by you? If your training is so valuable, why aren't you charging for it? I'm sure your competition would be willing to pay lot's of money to have their people upskilled from 0.
It is obvious from your simplistic comment that you need to acquire a much broader perspective before being able to interject with value in a conversation on this topic.
Note how they say this is to protect employee rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, any R president would have done this. The pendulum goes back and fourth…
Many Republican Presidential candidates campaigned on promising this, but in office they are least tried to govern. The voters got fed up and voted for someone who genuinely did want to destroy it.
I see a lot of people acting as if the aims of Trump are some big departure. In fact they have been mainstream R goals for a long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were all your employees blank slates when they joined, or did they "use" their previous employers to gain the skills required to become hirable by you? If your training is so valuable, why aren't you charging for it? I'm sure your competition would be willing to pay lot's of money to have their people upskilled from 0.
You managed to miss the entire point of the post. It is obvious from your simplistic comment that you need to acquire a much broader perspective before being able to interject with value in a conversation on this topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You managed to miss the entire point of the post. It is obvious from your simplistic comment that you need to acquire a much broader perspective before being able to interject with value in a conversation on this topic.
It's telling that nowhere in you ad hominem did you attempt to give a simplistic answer to an argument against your position that a middle-schooler could construct; they may not know the Categorical Imperative, but can intuit what's fair and what's not, and are old enough to know the world doesn't revolve around them.
It is clear from your original comment that you both missed the point and likely do not understand the matter enough to, well, make the comment you made.
Go hire someone who isn't qualified. Spend a year and a million dollars training them. Then see them go work for your competitor. Then, maybe then, you could have an opinion worth listening to.
Here's another one: Go use credit cards to pay salaries and take out a second mortgage to keep your business afloat during an economic depression (both of which I had to do in 2008) and then come back and see if you understand.
To simplify it for you, one of the things I said was that non-competes MIGHT (not DO, MIGHT) create a feedback mechanism that cause companies to avoid hiring people who need to be trained, for the simple reason that the training is valuable in time and money and the last thing they want is for those employees to jump ship as soon as they have gone through such training.
It's a simple matter of survival: If you are a small company or a startup, it would be suicidal. You are not in business to train people for your competitors or the industry. That's just a simple fact. You do that too many times and you are out of business.
And, again, to be clear, I don't like non-competes and advise everyone who asks not to sign them (if they live somewhere where they might be legal). It's a bad idea. However, once again, I understand why a small to medium organization might thing them to be essential when hiring people who need to be trained for the job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's telling that nowhere in you ad hominem did you attempt to give a simplistic answer to an argument against your position that a middle-schooler could construct; they may not know the Categorical Imperative, but can intuit what's fair and what's not, and are old enough to know the world doesn't revolve around them.
Ad hominem? Funny. Pointing out something is wrong or stupid isn't an attack, it's a fact. Don't like it? Well, sorry. It is clear from your original comment that you both missed the point and likely do not understand the matter enough to, well, make the comment you made. Go hire someone who isn't qualified. Spend a year and a million dollars training them. Then see them go work for your competitor. Then, maybe then,…
If only employee retention were not an inscrutable black box. What are the poor job-creators to do in the face of ungrateful, capricious employees who can at anytime for unfathomable reasons like "more remuneration", "recognition", or "better working conditions". Perhaps one day someone in the social sciences will do research in this uncharted corner of human psychology, and 50 years later, employers will know what to do.
I've seen colleagues uproot their lives by moving across the country and be laid off before they got their 3rd paycheck. I have worked under a toxic manager brought in at a startup for the express purpose of increasing attrition, amd afterwards looked at his linked in an realized that was his speciality: a contractor brought in to shake engineering teams to see what falls. The power imbalance, and rate of abuse between employers and employees are clear to me.