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
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.
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.
Honestly I think instead of banning non-competes they should just make it a hard requirement that a non-compete must be X percentage(no smaller then 30 or 40%) of your salary per year for the non-compete. Which in my opinion is fair because the entire point of a non-compete because you know information that a competitor could use that would give them a financial advantage so it makes sense that they would have to pay for your silence that you're not going to give that information away. If a company is saying they're not willing to pay that money that means the information you know isn't enough for them to care about so a non-compete shouldn't be in place in the first place
Like I've seen it non-compete clauses for web designers, which I find absolutely fucking ridiculous because there is little nothing that a web developer should be able to learn about a company that would financially harm it by going elsewhere, it's clear in those cases that those complete clauses are exclusively there as a trap to try to make it so their devs don't leave. The arguments those companies use is that there's financial incentive for that compromise. So a "well yeah you can do non-competes but they must be paid" will more or less blow their entire argument out of the water.
Personally I think if something similar like that gets implemented, you'll see a lot of the jobs that currently have a non-compete as part of their onboarding process will magically lose that as a requirement
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.
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
Well, it didn't make to the news, and the person in question eventually returned back to work, so it all ended well I guess. It was in one of the smaller cities in the eastern part of Russia, let's say that it was Tomsk.
And I also know a person who had some medical condition, something tells me that it was diabetes, but I can be wrong. So they fell unconcious in the winter and ended up laying in the snow for quite some time. And it was long enough for their fingers to be amputated. And the scariest thing that it was in a relatively crowded place, so there were a lot of people who could have helped them, but decided to just ignore them.
And don't feel horrible, it's just some of the stories, and they don't represent the whole picture. Also I tend to notice that usually all the horrible stuff is just easier to notice and remember and all the good things feel natural and just go by. At least it is true for me :)
Also I tend to notice that usually all the horrible stuff is just easier to notice and remember and all the good things feel natural and just go by. At least it is true for me :)
This isn't just you. It seems like our brain gets somehow triggered by negativity. This is the exact same reason the rights use fear to pass their messages and the same reason why headlines usually play with the fear of the people, because then more people will read the article.
In 2001, the CIW set its sights on Taco Bell and called for a boycott over the reportedly abysmal conditions in its tomato supply chain. Four years later, Taco Bell signed an agreement that included vital demands from the CIW: Taco Bell would pay a premium for its tomatoes that would go directly to workers’ paychecks, it would only buy from growers who met the code of conduct that protected workers, and this would be monitored and enforced by an investigative body with help from the CIW. It was all backed by a legally binding contract.
On one hand, I feel for people who are pushed out of the job market by this complete and utter bullshit. On the other hand, if you're stupid enough to use "AI" to make critical business decisions such as who to hire, then let me just say in very biblical terms, "that which you sow you shall also reap."
Except the business that fails gets a hand out from the government to stay profitable! At least until AI is figured out or the business abandons it and rehires some interns at a fraction of the cost using a new job code to underpay and understaff the work. Then the company can fend for itself.
so entering the job market is borderline impossible because all the "entry level positions" require you to have 3 years of experience, and then, if you miraculously get a job, changing it or getting fired is incredibly dangerous because said "experience" doesn't even matter in the eyes of AI overlords scanning your CV for keywords half of which it probably hallucinated
yeah but as someone entering the job market it's soul crushing to see all those listings. You think that you're the problem, that everyone else entering the field does have 3 years of experience already. It just fucking sucks, what's the point in inflating the requirements like that?
I realize this is not the best time or place but if any US Citizens are in here looking for a job I might have something in mind for you, part time 1099.
Had it pretty bad once while in the military, and this sums up how I felt exactly. Dumb people in a dumb situation almost ended up with me in a lot of trouble.
I can't imagine working in a hot place and not having one person in charge constantly handing out bottles of water and reminding everyone to hydrate. I guess I've been lucky with my managers and supervisors over the years, never met one who didn't take this stuff seriously.
Lawyers are one of the few workers who get paid proportionally to the value they produce. It's just that the value they produce has grown exponentially high since they represent people and corporations with ridiculous sums of money.
A good example is the case where Elon Musk sued the law firm that the former Twitter owners used to force Musk into buying Twitter. Musk argued that the $90 million payment to the law firm was way too much money. The law firm argued the deal was worth $44 billion, making their payment just 0.2% of the value they created for their client. Courts agreed the law firm did not overcharge.
If each worker for Amazon got paid 0.2% of Amazon's yearly revenue, they'd all make over $1 million a year. The problem is they have so many employees that Amazon can't actually give each of them 0.2%.
Another example is the two Trump defamation cases. The first case was put on hold because he was president. The second case was after he was no longer president. Courts eventually ruled both cases could proceed, so it was a rare time when someone got tried for the same thing twice. Trump used two different lawyers when arguing these cases. One case resulted in a $5 million decision and the other resulted in an $83.3 million decision. It's a great example of the value of a good lawyer. These cases were identical except for Trump's lawyer. One lawyer can generate $78.3 million in value. It's hard to find any other profession where a single person can generate that much value in a few months.
I feel an exception class actions. Lawyers walk away with way too much of damages that should be going to victims. If it were that same .2% it would be ok, but it's not. It's on average 25-30% of the total fee, and that's disgusting.
You should be focusing your frustration on the other side that makes these lawyers so valuable. Insurance companies often knowingly deny valid claims and significantly under offer early settlements. If we held insurers to a higher standard of accuracy and penalized them whenever a jury finding was much higher than a settlement offer then lawyers would be less necessary.
Work Reform
Oldest