Jump to content

Because Biden


nitflegal

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

There is a certain logic to it. Not unlike the way things are done on Beta Colony in the Vorkosigan novels. 

I think they think of Jackson Whole as a desired end state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doomed!

I don't know what you Hispanics are planning to do to black Americans, but it sure doesn't sound good.

 

index.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Biden administration is looking at Non-compete agreements:

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/biden-executive-order-signals-future-restrictions-non-compete-agreements

In the article it says 35 to 60 million Americans are covered by non-compete agreements. The 35 million seems like a very high number, let alone 60 million.

There are some legitimate reasons for non-compete agreements:

A chemists or other scientists for a pharmaceutical company not going to work for a competitor.

An automotive engineer not going to work for a rival.

On the other hand there are abuses that need to be curbed.

I know some one that worked for a family owned prosthetics company for years. A big company bought them. They made all the existing employees sign a non-compete agreement or be let go.  A few years latter they fired all the senior employees and brought in lower wage  employees. Those let go could not get employment in the field they knew because of the no-compete agreement. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

The Biden administration is looking at Non-compete agreements:

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/biden-executive-order-signals-future-restrictions-non-compete-agreements

In the article it says 35 to 60 million Americans are covered by non-compete agreements. The 35 million seems like a very high number, let alone 60 million.

There are some legitimate reasons for non-compete agreements:

A chemists or other scientists for a pharmaceutical company not going to work for a competitor.

An automotive engineer not going to work for a rival.

On the other hand there are abuses that need to be curbed.

I know some one that worked for a family owned prosthetics company for years. A big company bought them. They made all the existing employees sign a non-compete agreement or be let go.  A few years latter they fired all the senior employees and brought in lower wage  employees. Those let go could not get employment in the field they knew because of the no-compete agreement. 

 

Professionals (chemists, scientists, engineers, etc.) should not be exempted from non-compete agreement protections.  Arguably, they need the protections more, since they're more likely to be forced to sign an agreement than a production line worker.  Non-compete agreements should require that the company compensate the employee for the duration of the non-compete.  The agreements that I've seen typically offer only continued employment (at will, naturally) or maybe a couple weeks of severance pay (if the company is feeling generous) in exchange for not working for a supplier, customer, or competitor for some number of years after the employee leaves.  These agreements are used to reduce attrition/turnover, not to protect IP.

I doubt an EO is going to make much difference.  Legislation or Supreme Court level rulings would be the only way to really affect the landscape.

Douglas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

The employees and brought in lower wage  employees. Those let go could not get employment in the field they knew because of the no-compete agreement. 

 

Non-compete agreements in those circumstances are extremely difficult to enforce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is enough to be enforced once for the rest to be scared into obeying it.

It is a simple "we own you" mechanism, modern version of the indentured servitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's certainly something we need, more government regulation.

BTW, I don't think a non-compete clause can be enforced if the employee is fired.  However, if one should be asked to sign a non-compete with language that states it would be enforced no matter how or why the employment is terminated, then it's time to say no and make sure your resume is up to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DKTanker said:

That's certainly something we need, more government regulation.

BTW, I don't think a non-compete clause can be enforced if the employee is fired.  However, if one should be asked to sign a non-compete with language that states it would be enforced no matter how or why the employment is terminated, then it's time to say no and make sure your resume is up to date.

It can, if the company meets the terms of the non-compete.  For example, if the consideration is continued at-will employment and two weeks of severance pay in the event of termination, the agreement would still be in effect as long as the severance is paid.  The employee received the "consideration." 

Think about it--the company gets to fire someone, and in exchange for two weeks severance pay can run the employee out of the area or the industry for a couple of years (whatever the duration of the agreement).  Helluva trade and a relatively cheap intimidation tool to keep the rest of the employees from jumping ship.  Even if they lose the court fight, the company still wins, because the court costs and attorney's fees typically aren't recoverable.  So it could still cost the employee several thousand out of pocket to fight and win.

Finally, can the average employee afford to stand on principle and quit their job when the company drops one of these agreements out of the blue on a random workday morning?  Surprise!  Sign or clean out your desk! 

I'm generally not fond of additional government regulation, but this is an area that could use a bit of balancing to maintain right to work.  Maybe establishing in the law that the consideration given to the employee in a non-compete may not be less than the salary, bonuses, and benefits paid for the duration of the non-compete and setting a maximum limit on the duration of the non-compete.  And/Or making attorney's fees, court costs, and lost income recoverable if the company loses in the attempt to enforce.

Douglas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Ol Paint said:

It can, if the company meets the terms of the non-compete.  For example, if the consideration is continued at-will employment and two weeks of severance pay in the event of termination, the agreement would still be in effect as long as the severance is paid.  The employee received the "consideration." 

Think about it--the company gets to fire someone, and in exchange for two weeks severance pay can run the employee out of the area or the industry for a couple of years (whatever the duration of the agreement).  Helluva trade and a relatively cheap intimidation tool to keep the rest of the employees from jumping ship.  Even if they lose the court fight, the company still wins, because the court costs and attorney's fees typically aren't recoverable.  So it could still cost the employee several thousand out of pocket to fight and win.

Finally, can the average employee afford to stand on principle and quit their job when the company drops one of these agreements out of the blue on a random workday morning?  Surprise!  Sign or clean out your desk! 

I'm generally not fond of additional government regulation, but this is an area that could use a bit of balancing to maintain right to work.  Maybe establishing in the law that the consideration given to the employee in a non-compete may not be less than the salary, bonuses, and benefits paid for the duration of the non-compete and setting a maximum limit on the duration of the non-compete.  And/Or making attorney's fees, court costs, and lost income recoverable if the company loses in the attempt to enforce.

Douglas

First, I stated that if the agreement is one sided it's time to walk away.  However, if one chooses to continue working with a blade hanging over their neck, that's their choice and none of my concern.  My concern because me, you, we, are government.   Said employee is not prohibited from adding conditions to the contract, nor are they prohibited from taking a copy of the contract to a lawyer who can help advise on such matters before the contract is finalized.

Be careful what you wish for, there will undoubtedly be unexpected consequences of adding another level of government regulation and I fear it will harm, rather than help, those that it proports to help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I would seriously love to believe there is a secret cabal behind him telling him what to do. At least somebody would know what they are doing.

1) Its not that secret. Quoth the POTUS, on camera; "I don't know what I'm signing."

2) Unsubstantiated assumption that the folks telling Biden what to do, themselves know what they are doing.

To wit, whoever was the Answer Person on the radio was asleep on the job, thus the looong pause while Biden was waiting for his lines to be spoken into his earpiece.

I know it violates FCC regs, but shame on the Rs for not bringing broad-spectrum jammers to debates and such.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

To wit, whoever was the Answer Person on the radio was asleep on the job, thus the looong pause while Biden was waiting for his lines to be spoken into his earpiece.

Upon further review you can just perceive what may be an earpiece in his right ear.  If in doubt, there is no doubting that he looks to the right as he listens with his right ear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

1) Its not that secret. Quoth the POTUS, on camera; "I don't know what I'm signing."

2) Unsubstantiated assumption that the folks telling Biden what to do, themselves know what they are doing.

To wit, whoever was the Answer Person on the radio was asleep on the job, thus the looong pause while Biden was waiting for his lines to be spoken into his earpiece.

I know it violates FCC regs, but shame on the Rs for not bringing broad-spectrum jammers to debates and such.

 

😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...