Ridin' with Biden

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Cuddles, Jul 27, 2020.

  1. Cuddles

    Cuddles

    that's just the BS excuse they give to suppress wages.
     
    #701     Jan 6, 2023
  2. Non competes dont supress wages....as I said non competes can be upheld for partners and high level execs who earn 6 figures or more. non competes for low wage earners should not be upheld as there is no damage from a waiter or dishwasher leaving a restaurant to work somewhere else.
     
    #702     Jan 6, 2023
  3. Cuddles

    Cuddles

    Sure they do. They literally suppress competition from employers bidding up wages. There's irony in the name.

    edit: Maybe. maybe not. If you're freeing up a supply of experienced workers that should technically lower wages, but if you've got workers locked in geographically, you can dictate compensation/raises since they're stuck.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2023
    #703     Jan 6, 2023

  4. Most upheld non competes are not geographically based but time based so the issue you are mentioning is hypothetical. Non competes dont ban comptition permanently, they provide a time element. Often they are meant to prevent you from going to the competition which means there is competition and using what you know and learned to then harm the company you left.

    Also geographic non competes dont supress wages, they mainly stop an enmployee from going to a competitor in the same region BUT the competitor still exists and there is still competition. Competition means compete....not use former employees to pull client lists and other information which competitors often do in luring employees at competitive firms.

    I think you are hypothesizing about non competes rather than looking at what they really do. I am not in favor of all non competes but for high level execs and partners you can understand why they exists.... It does not stifle competition, it stops a partner from leaving to go help the competition with all the time and resources you poured into them.

    If employees wants to leave and the non compete is burdensome for non reasonable reasons they will be struck down.

    that is why I said non compete clauses do serve a purpose and banning them outright is typical government bull in a china shop. It would be easier to simply regulate them better to avoid low wage earners or low wage jobs from requiring non competes since that is ridiculous.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2023
    #704     Jan 6, 2023
  5. Cuddles

    Cuddles

    I don't think it's hypothetical for many engineers in San Mateo or Palo Alto area to avoid switching jobs for better pay for fear of a non compete legal battle. I understand many are non-enforceable but many don't know that. Lots of contracting agencies use them liberally for technicians too. Good riddance imo, even if they weren't worth the paper they're printed on.
     
    #705     Jan 6, 2023
  6. gwb-trading

    gwb-trading

     
    #706     Jan 6, 2023
  7. Cuddles

    Cuddles

    I didn't really care to read past the headline announcement but lots of echoing of what i said:

     
    #707     Jan 7, 2023
  8. gwb-trading

    gwb-trading

    #708     Jan 9, 2023
  9. ids

    ids

    It is too late. We know who he is now.
     
    #709     Jan 9, 2023
    smallfil likes this.
  10. wildchild

    wildchild

    Is that the same corvette that Biden stores the classified documents next to?
     
    #710     Jan 14, 2023
    smallfil and elderado like this.