Well, I've been in a situation where person had a stroke and everyone just assumed they were on drugs. Although the. ambulance have been called and not the police, but I still felt really bad for the person as everyone around them talked about how they went for a smoke not so long ago and definitely took something and were on drugs. And it was in Russia, so yeah, assholes can be found anywhere
Imagine that you are right and a person is on drugs; what kind of inhumane psychopath do you have to be to see someone having a medical emergency - regardless of the cause - and think that the police are the best people to deal with the situation?
You would only have to uncritically believe what you were told growing up by state PSAs, sitcoms, cartoons, teachers, librarians, medical professionals, therapists, other police officers, religious leaders, and probably your parents and grandparents. Every shadow you see on the cave wall tells you that the police are the answer to every problem.
Wow, the yoga example in the article is exactly why noncompetes are terrible. For those who didn't read... A yoga studio owner didn't like it when former employees opened up their own yoga studio nearby. So she added noncompete clauses to future contracts. In other words, she's too inept to compete on delivering a quality product.
In other words, she's too inept to compete on delivering a quality product.
That's why all non-compete contracts exist, and the same reason they should all be illegal.
If you spend time training someone, and they can turn around and go off on their own, what do you bring to the table? Why should they work for you, giving you the fruits of their labor in exchange for less pay? If you're worried about competition, don't train your competition. Do it better than they do. You aren't entitled to the value of a person's life just because you contributed to their expertise.
It makes some sense that if someone is going to invest time and money into training you to help them, they would not want you to immediately turn around and compete with them. So in that regard I understand it. But they're usually abusive contracts that last way too long, far beyond what is reasonable, and cover many activities outside of direct competition such as stating that you can't even accept another job in the same industry.
A lot of abuses and anti-competitive practices make sense. It makes sense to buy your competitors, and pay off regulators. "Smart business" is almost always an attempt to leverage factors outside of normal competition. You don't win at capitalism by playing fair.
Of course we should. Teaching should be a highly compensated profession, and taxes should pay for every penny. Education pays dividends for society as a whole.
But teachers are not entitled to the production of their students. They should not expect students to be indebted or repay the education.
"Did the federal government make a change for the benefit of the people, and might be an inconvenience to business.... never fear there's a judge in Texas to stop it and later when it gets appealed to the supreme court overturned!"
Why do I feel like we are held hostage by judges lately? Aren't they supposed to be unbiased and apolitical. Seems to me they should lose their appointment if they can be shown to have political motivation/ baises
That’s specifically why the complaint was filed in Texas. Saner districts might’ve decided against the plaintiffs, like in California, where they’re unenforceable, IIRC.
I actually like noncompetes. Your company has to compensate you full salary and educational courses including travel costs for the time of this noncompete agreement, which is actually quite nice.
Edit: of course that is the rule in Europe. I don’t know about the situation in pro work slavery us.
To be more specific than the other responder, a noncompete does not include training. You could hire a senior staff member who is already experienced and include a noncompete. There is very little regulation. If it was tied to training for a set time, it makes sense. Unfortunately in the US, it usually doesn't.
If it worked that way in the US then that would be sensibly pro-worker while allowing the existing employer to defend their intellectual property and investments in employees.
The reality is I have a 2 year noncompete that simply prevents me from working for competitors within 50 miles of any of my job sites unless I want to open myself up to a lawsuit. If I left today, I'd have to travel way further to get to an acceptable location, but would certainly not be receiving any compensation for that hassle from my previous employer. The elimination of noncompetes would be a huge boon to me and my colleagues, but this sort of court shenanigans is why I said I'd wait to be excited until it actually took effect.
How does this even work? How is a District Court judge in another state allowed to stop something before it is heard by a higher court? Do all federal judges have more power than the President?
Any federal judge can impact a federal action. Courts interpret actions (usually laws) from the other branches. A bad ruling will be overturned by an appellate court, which in turn could be overturned by SCOTUS
Because Americans let themselves be fooled by branding obvious anti labor laws 'at will employment'.
The fact you have a required notice period in both directions makes sense. And the bar for firing someone should be structural provable documented underperformance and several plans for remediation by the employer.
People should not be disposable assets.
Human resources says it all. And nowadays HR people are also labelled HR Business partner. So the mask is fully off now. Just in time for structural labor shortages and recruiting problems.
Yeah, if one person is fired from the company the default thought in Japan is that person must have done something very wrong to even get to that place, as it's quite rare for fulltime salaried employees.
If a group of people are laid off, in Japanese culture that reflects very poorly on the company, suggesting that management was irresponsible to lead the company into this situation.
If a group of people are laid off, in Japanese culture that reflects very poorly on the company, suggesting that management was irresponsible to lead the company into this situation.
I mean, that's the actual truth. All these tech layoffs are just happening because Executive Leadership Teams copy each other. A few years ago they were all hiring at the same time too.
You should hire when others are firing so you get the best employees. You should hold off on hiring when everyone else is hiring, so you don't overpay. It's pretty simple.
Exactly. We need better laws here in the states. My company has had three layoffs and another is around the corner, in just two years. Yet, they keep acquiring other companies.
Fuck Chick-fil-A aside, I have no problem with kids having an experience where they learn to respect the work that goes into stereotypically "unskilled" labor.
So when I criticize Trump and MAGAs respond ORANGE MAN BAD they're asserting I have a bias so its not enough to just dislike Trump. I have to point out his behaviors, his characteristics, his policy decisions that drive my revulsion and public revulsion.
So when an alleged economics expert like Dave Ramsey says bearded man bad he needs to elaborate what specific notion of beard he doesn't like, or why he's wary of it. Otherwise we can just assume he's being partisan like a belligerent Dodgers fan.
Work Reform
Active