Its especially annying to those of us who paid for our own education and certifications. I have chosen to not get a job where I am required to sign it. I have that luxury. If they can't trust me to not give away their trade secrets, why would you hire me to begin with?
I live in a small town. The chamber of commerce is made up of people who have nothing better to do than try to get into other people's business. It's like a giant HOA. 🤔💩🤷
This is the best thing to come out of any administration since I can remember. This is actual progress and meaningful change. I am both shocked and thrilled. Now, let's knock out those non-arbitration agreements that tyrannically oppress the American worker and revoke their right to due process next!
I've never understood how these broad noncompete agrteements can pass Thirteenth Amendment scrutiny. How can a noncompete that's so broad as to prevent a tradesman from plying his trade elsewhere not an indenture? The Chamber of Commerce here is arguing "but having such a rule would make the plantation unprofitable, because hired hands are more expensive than slaves!" I suppose one could formulate an exception if the agreement pays the worker for the time spent "on the beach" after leaving. "You want to forbid me from working in the industry for two years? Fine: give me two years' pay up front and I'll take the timeout." But for most of these agreements, the only consideration is continued employment - and the negotiation is made AFTER the job offer.That is, they hire you, and once you've burnt your bridges at your old job, THEN they spring the choice "sign the noncompete or be fired". That seems to me to be fraud, but the courts have held that it's "employment at will," since before the agreement you were free to walk off the job. Particularly offensive is when a former employer tries to enforce a noncompete against a fired employee. "We don't want you, and won't pay you, but you STILL can't work for anyone else." Some such cases have been upheld. Many more render the fired employee unemployable, since no employer wants to buy a lawsuit.
Don't you realize it yet? Politicians / The Rich treat worker solidarity, not continued poverty, as intolerable. Employees and employers don't want the same thing, and employers want to have all of the power and all of the decision making capabilities when it comes to everything. Because no one in their right mind would take a minimum wage job, with no benefits, no career advancement, no job security, and no job loyalty.
Funny the government passed this rule because they have non-compete contracts. Albeit it was a long time ago, but when I worked for the Department of Labor, Allen Certification, they had me sign a non-compete contract preventing me from working for the many lawyers whose cases I denied wanting me to work for them.
Politicians / The Rich treat worker solidarity, not continued poverty, as intolerable. Employees and employers don't want the same thing, and employers want to have all of the power and all of the decision making capabilities when it comes to everything. Because no one in their right mind would take a minimum wage job, with no benefits, no career advancement, no job security, and no job loyalty.
Its especially annying to those of us who paid for our own education and certifications. I have chosen to not get a job where I am required to sign it. I have that luxury. If they can't trust me to not give away their trade secrets, why would you hire me to begin with?
I live in a small town. The chamber of commerce is made up of people who have nothing better to do than try to get into other people's business. It's like a giant HOA. 🤔💩🤷
This is the best thing to come out of any administration since I can remember. This is actual progress and meaningful change. I am both shocked and thrilled.
Now, let's knock out those non-arbitration agreements that tyrannically oppress the American worker and revoke their right to due process next!
How about we raise the minimum wage too.
I'm in North Carolina making $10.50/hr.
I've never understood how these broad noncompete agrteements can pass Thirteenth Amendment scrutiny. How can a noncompete that's so broad as to prevent a tradesman from plying his trade elsewhere not an indenture? The Chamber of Commerce here is arguing "but having such a rule would make the plantation unprofitable, because hired hands are more expensive than slaves!"
I suppose one could formulate an exception if the agreement pays the worker for the time spent "on the beach" after leaving. "You want to forbid me from working in the industry for two years? Fine: give me two years' pay up front and I'll take the timeout." But for most of these agreements, the only consideration is continued employment - and the negotiation is made AFTER the job offer.That is, they hire you, and once you've burnt your bridges at your old job, THEN they spring the choice "sign the noncompete or be fired". That seems to me to be fraud, but the courts have held that it's "employment at will," since before the agreement you were free to walk off the job.
Particularly offensive is when a former employer tries to enforce a noncompete against a fired employee. "We don't want you, and won't pay you, but you STILL can't work for anyone else." Some such cases have been upheld. Many more render the fired employee unemployable, since no employer wants to buy a lawsuit.
Don't you realize it yet? Politicians / The Rich treat worker solidarity, not continued poverty, as intolerable.
Employees and employers don't want the same thing, and employers want to have all of the power and all of the decision making capabilities when it comes to everything.
Because no one in their right mind would take a minimum wage job, with no benefits, no career advancement, no job security, and no job loyalty.
Funny the government passed this rule because they have non-compete contracts. Albeit it was a long time ago, but when I worked for the Department of Labor, Allen Certification, they had me sign a non-compete contract preventing me from working for the many lawyers whose cases I denied wanting me to work for them.
That's ironic and messed up.
So really this is just to still guarantee employers have more power than employees?
Politicians / The Rich treat worker solidarity, not continued poverty, as intolerable.
Employees and employers don't want the same thing, and employers want to have all of the power and all of the decision making capabilities when it comes to everything.
Because no one in their right mind would take a minimum wage job, with no benefits, no career advancement, no job security, and no job loyalty.
Thank god especially with the wwe
Good
Great. Can we do the same for tipped workers, too?
Asma Canadian it's just so damn weird to hear "hospital corporation". It's just wrong
but isnt it getting rid of restriction on
So whats the point
They need to be banned for fast food workers. That’s the asinine thing.