I’d prefer to understand the terms here before meeting judgement. The article intentionally avoids the topic by bringing up a point related, but not saying that happened here and then points out what sometimes happens in other places. I do not trust this piece.
Many times these agreements are quite fair (see what I did there).
Except it’s really not. The real estate industry, the entertainment industry and PG&E get away with murder in California. Literally, in the case of at least one of them.
Neoliberalism, which is the main ideology of the California political elite, is still very pro-corporate and susceptible to legal bribes from billionaires and their corporations.
That’s mostly true, but some people who aren’t generally that pro-establishment themselves still see it as inherently trustworthy and politically left of center even though it’s neither. I blame MSM being an invariably pro-establishment circlejerk.
The training costs are not the craziest part of this claim from my perspective: The Skin and Cancer Institute was trying to make her repay US$38,000 in training costs and more than US$100,000 for “loss of business” caused by the company’s inability to transfer Ms Lakey’s responsibilities to someone new.
They we’re probably paying a fraction of that as a salary and then want to hold the employee accountable that they can’t find a replacement. Crazy world…
