Slashdot Mirror
Non-Competes Might Mean Loss Of Benefits
Skapare writes "WashTech is running a story about how having a non-compete agreement could cause loss of unemployment benefits. While non-compete agreements are addressed in unemployment benefits policies, it seems you still get shafted because it forces you to accept any employment outside your field, making it much harder to find work in your field. Personally, I think the employers with whom you have a non-compete agreement should be the ones paying you unemployment benefits."
Dont sign the non-compete agreement. I've never had an employment offer widthdrawn because of it.
.
Want to put non-competitive clause in my contract? Fine, but then I want you to pay me salary during the perioid.
It has to be a balance in the system.
I seem to recall reading a few years ago, during the boom, that "non-compete" clauses COULD NOT prevent you from taking a job for fear of getting sued. That they were basically bullshit, in fact. A whole "right to work" thing.
Anyone have the facts on this?
If he didn't want one before, I'm sure the guy would like a full-time gig. I've always been uneasy with contracting companies. It has never seemed like a good deal to me. I've been fortunate that I've been able to find full time employment. For me, a contracting company would be a last choice. They demand too much and provide too little in return.
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
but the last time a lawyer explained the non compete laws to me they were enforceable on a limited basis, with the limitations differing by state.
Personally, I think the employers with whom you have a non-compete agreement should be the ones paying you unemployment benefits
They may not be paying unemployment benefits, but they *do* provide compensation for the non-compete agreement. In the case of slave traders like these, the compensation is in the form of getting a job in the first place; in the case of other companies, people signing non-compete agreements are generally paid more than they would receive at a job which did not require such an agreement.
If you don't like the terms of employment offered, *don't accept them*.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I'm not allowed to sysadmin Windows 2000-through-2005, but haha they called it Windows XP.
I am pretty sure it is time for me to seriously consider putting the IT scum sector behind me for good. I'm sure there is more career satisfaction in being a garbage man. At least people appreciate your efforts ;-)
My wife (just graduated law school, yet to pass the bar) was leafing through an old non-compete of mine and was rolling on the floor due to the laughable language. Due to its ludicrous nature (and liberal use of the word "forever") she informed me that its 'bullshit' (I believe that is a technical law term).
;)
So non-comps are nice but their ability to prevent you from gainful employment is seriously questionable. I'm unaware of any case law regarding this; any lawyers out there care to school us?
Just bill the time to the "slashdot overhead" account!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
That's why I wonder about people who go with contract "employment" over the long term. It's an inherently unstable environment, that can get some decent $$$ in the short term, but over the long term requires tremendous discipline to maintain retirement savings, health insurance, etc. My first piece of advice to this guy would be to get a full-time job with benefits, even if its not a great tech job (if things are so precarious with caring for his daughter). Relative stability is worth something...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Generally speaking, I don't believe you have to take any position offered you. I was unemployed for five months and was offered a new position at an extremely lower wage than the position I had previously held. In order to circumvent the problem of either taking the job or losing my unemployment benefits, I called the company back and told them that my "requested salary" was much higher than what they were offering. At that point, they rescinded the job offer and I, of course, reported that I had had no job offers since technically I hadn't ;-)
All you have to do is make the company "aware" of something that makes you look unattractive for the current position. They'll rescind the job offer and you won't lose your benefits.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
I am moving to Washington in two weeks, I am kind of glad to know about Volt before hand. I was actually looking into them.
Non-competes are simple anti-trust.
The truest sign U.S. government is controlled by corporate interests rather than people's interests is the allowance for non-compete clauses, among other anti-employee self-determination politics.
...is higher unemployment insurance rates.
If a company has an employee sign a non-compete agreement, they are effectively limiting that employee's future prospects, and placing a heavier load on the unemployment insurer. Therefore the insurance company should monitor what non-compete agreements the company uses and charge the company accordingly.
As to Mr. Robb's dilemma, he did not receive a valid work offer (because of the agreement he was essentially "not qualified" for the job anyway) and therefore should not have needed to report the offer to the insurer.
Non-competes are not enforceable in the state of California. It's perfectly legitimate for a company to demand you not divulge company secrets when you change jobs, but they can not prevent you from working in your field of expertise.
The last time an employment contract had a non-compete clause in it, I crossed it out and initialed it. I also told the HR person I had done so and explained that it wasn't enforceable in this state. It did not affect the hiring. Actually, at that point they couldn't refuse to hire me since they had already made the offer which I had accepted. If they had refused to hire me for my unwillingness to sign an unenforceable contract, they would have been open to all kinds of litigation.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Personally, I think the employers with whom you have a non-compete agreement should be the ones paying you unemployment benefits.
Companies in TX do pay for your unemployment benefits. I urge anybody who finds themselves laid off in Texas to file for unemployment, whether or not you need it. Your former employer's unemployment tax rate is based in part on unemployment claims received the prior year. Extended benefits result in chargebacks to the employer in the form of increased unemployment taxes for the following year.
Make those tax dollars work for you, and stop giving your former employers a free ride by refusing to file for unemployment.
When I worked at Appleby Windows there NDA was supposed to keep us from ripping off leads (telemarketing term) and taking knowledge about our Windows to other companies.
Appleby really abused that system. If they got wind that you were working for another Window, Door or Patio company they came after you.
What do you think the actual risks are of working for those companies anyways?
Say you have no inclination to do dishonest stuff like stealing leads and the like, you just want a job. So you keep your trap shut and work it.
Does anyone think that they will actually get caught?
How about this, lets say the NDA is for 4 years and you have been working at the competition during years 3, 4 and 5. If Appleby (or whoever) figures this out in year 5 are you clear? Or can they get you for years 3 and 4?
I had to sign one of these to get a job.
When we both decided it was time for me to leave (They abused me, I bitched about it but they didn't like me bitching about them abusing me!) I was informed that I could not work in the only field I knew, computers, for 3 years.
I called "bullshit" on them and told them I would have another job doing the same thing before the day was out.
They told me if I did they would see me in court and would own my soul for life.
I was employed by another firm before the sun set that day and I called to tell the old firm to stuff it.
They sent me some nasty-grams and I tossed them in the circular file. Lawyers rang my phone for months and months on end and they mailed tons of nasty letters to me which I just ignored. Nothing ever came of it.
After a year they gave up.
Every once in a while I get a spurt of calls and nasty-grams from collection agencies, the law firms are STILL trying to stiff me for legal fees.
nasty-grams --> circular file
phone calls --> answering machine w/SIT tones....
Non-compete agreement, just don't sign it.
No one has the legal right to stop you from earning a living.
You can be sued six ways to Sunday and they may take the shirt off your back but they can't take the tools of your trade. To do so would be denying you the right to earn a living. Forcing someone to submit to a non-competition agreement is the same thing, it is tantamount to them taking the tools of your trade...
If you *MUST* sign one, just ignore it when you leave and go out and make a living. You do what you have to do stay alive. NO ONE has the right to stop you...
Don't ever become a contractor. Although I have non-compete agreements but I'm not a contractor.
Ah, the business world. Where freedom doesn't ring.
One of the nice things about living in Nebraska.
Non-competes cannot keep you from working in the field, only from working directly for a competitor, provided you're working on *exactly* the same type of project.
As a widget developer, You can work for a competitor that develops gadgets, but not widgets.
Unemployment cannot deny you benifits as long as you make the required 2 contacts per week are actually "available" to work, and register with the state employment agency.
They *cannot* force you to accept employment for which you are not skilled.
Any fool can work on a garbage route(I've actually done it) but if it's not something you've *trained* for, or have prior experience in, they can't make you accept work in that field.
I was out of work for two months, and ran throuh all my computer related employments contacts within the first two weeks. On all my apps for crap jobs I was qualified for (like the garbage route) I stated I expected salary comensurate with my experience. I was making 36K when I got laid off, so that's what I wanted to work at the local Kwik Shop.
Just so you understand I wasn't milking the system, believe me I'd much rather work, all of the "prviously skilled" positions I was looking at all wanted my computer skills in addition to my "job related" skills. I'll work on the garbage route for $8.00 an hour, sure. You want me to fix your computers also? I get paid for those skills, and $8.00 an hour doesn't begin to cover it.
Just once, I'd like it if someone called me "Sir".
Without adding, "You're creating a scene."
Personally, I think the employers with whom you have a non-compete agreement should be the ones paying you unemployment benefits.
... in a certain sense they do pay some of it. Employers pay a certain amount of money into an unemployment fund. The amount of money they pay is based on a number of factors including their "experience rating" which I think has something to do with the number of people they've had eligible to collect unemployment. THe more people that leave the company and collect unemployment, the more money the company has to pay into the unemployment fund.
I am by no means an authority on this but
There are some companies out there, that have a policy of initially contesting every unemployment claim in order to keep their experience rating "good" and reduce the amount of money they pay into the unemployment fund.
Anyways, I don't know first hand how true all this is. It's just something I heard over lunch with manager/accountant types. It may only apply to certain levels of businesses or it could be a state of ohio thing too.
This could actually work. "Accept" the job while refusing to sign the NCA. Keep a copy of your letter stating that you accept the offer in case your unemployment benefits are challenged, should it be the case they decline to employ you.
I've actually done that once on an indepdent contract. They wanted an NCA preventing me from working for any hosting company for a year. At the time, hosting companies were just starting on the scene, and that looked like a good field to work in. I simply explained that agreeing to that effectively agreed to be unemployed for a year for someone whose expertise was well focused on internet technology, and most ISPs were becoming hosting companies. I offered to agree not to take any customers with me to any new company (as if I could ... I don't work in sales).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
You're right of course. Killing the economy is the domain of government, coporations, their boards and CEO's, not the common man.
Sigs are bad for your health.
Non-compete agreements (NCA) are not necessarily bad, not all of them. If you are careful to read the details, and understand the real meaning of each sentence (i.e. don't be afraid to ask questions!), it's ok to sign NCA if it's not abusive.
I rememberd that I was once offered a job at a network security company, which required me to sign a background clearance agreement which stated that they can check every detail of my life, including all emails I've sent before, all news postings, all phone conversations, etc. Basically with one signature, I would have signed away my entire life's information. On top of that, I had to sign an NCA that said if I leave the company, I can't work in the computer security field for two years, or until their patents expire, or some BS like this. It was incredible. But the salary and benefits and stock options were all incredible too. I was making already 6-figures, and this gave me another 45% raise on top of my previous salary, plus stock options in the 6-figure range too. The offer was attracting, but I didn't sign the agreement. They were willing to modify the background checking requirements to my acceptance, but not the NCA. So I just turned it down.
Now that I've started my own software company, we also have a NCA, but it's very comprehensive. When an employee leaves the company, he can't compete directly in the exact same field, doing the exact same work, developing the exact same functionality. And that's only six months. He is not obviously barred from working in the same industry. Frankly, I don't know the legality of this agreement, but we do emphasize this aspect to new employees, as a precaution measure so that they understand the problems. One thing we want to achieve is to make our employees understand the ethical aspects of working in the hi-tech industry, and that's all.
ps: If I had accepted the offer I mentioned, I would be multi-millionaire by now, as the company had been acquired by a larger entity, and the stock options have been converted into the stock of that larger corporation. That's the price for sticking with your principles in life!
This article is so unbelieveably biased that I didn't even have to look at the source to realize that it was Union rag.
....Bethanie....
Note how it starts out by getting you all riled up about this poor guy's plight -- his role as the beleaguered sole supporter of his special-needs daughter and the hopelessness conundrum proposed by his circumstances. But if you read it thoroughly, you also see that he was completely vindicated by Excell, the Washington State Employment Security Department, and later, by Volt.
And then, of course, the article launches into the obligatory attack on Microsoft and its evil feudalistic business practices, because who doesn't hate MS, right?
Listen up, people. We live in a FREE country. You don't HAVE to sign a contract with an employment agency if you don't want to, and before you do, you'd sure as hell better read the fine print before you sign up! If they aren't making you a decent offer, then move on to the next agency!! Evaluate them as carefully as you would a prospective employer -- because, in effect, that is what they are.
The knowledge you have and the skills you can leverage are your currency in today's economy. When you accept a job or a contract with someone, it's because you are willing to provide what you know in exchange for what they offer you.
These businesses won't STAY in business for long if they can't recruit quality talent. Hell, if you're good enough, you can negotiate the damn non-compete out of your OWN contract!
Next time you read an article like this -- remember: Always consider the source!
I believe california has a law which basically prohibits no-compete laws. This isn't exactly what I was looking for, but is close enough...
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Personally, I think the employers with whom you have a non-compete agreement should be the ones paying you unemployment benefits.
They do, unless you're a complete dreg. It's called severance pay and most people are entitled to it.
Can't find the original story I read, but I remember that Lucent once tried to sue a number of former employees who left to join Cisco. IIRC the judge laughed the suit out of court partly due to the fact that he found Lucent's technology to be so far behind Cisco's at the time that he couldn't see any chance of Cisco actually being able to use any of Lucent's obsolete "secrets".
The best reference to the case I could find just mentions that the judge couldn't find any injury to Lucent but also that he found fault the management practices that caused them to leave in the first place. I'm not sure what happened on appeal.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
ISO certification requires this? Now that's getting really absurd. I smell a whole new story there.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
didn't sign non-compete agreement with SCO. If so, you'd be required stay out of all companies in association with UNIX, Linux, and since Microsoft admitted UNIX licensing, Windows. Yes, that's basically the entire world, and that's what SCO is competing with. :)
And by the time SCO completed the world domination, you'd have to relocate to Mars.
Same in California, and for the rest of the country, I believe. I own a small business and I pay a percentage of each employee's gross up to a set amount, over which I don't pay anything. This comes out of my pocket, not the employee's. When someone files for unemployment, they draw against these contributions. If too many people draw unemployment, my percentages go up -- an incentive to keep people working, I guess.
So, to make a long story short. Employers DO pay unemployment. It's just filetered through the govt.
To keep this on topic - we don't do noncompetes for our employees, but I can see how the govt would get upset. They're paying unemployment for someone who has specifically agreed NOT to look for work in their field. Certainly not in the spirit of the law. Perhaps the unemployment should kick in when the non-compete expires.
Non-compete clauses are generally unenforceable in CA, as they are considered to violate the public policy of allowing one to work in his/her profession, and recognizing the (obvious) reality that employees are not able to bargain on equal terms with employers. This is not the case if you are a corporate officer selling a business.
There was a very neat recent case with an out of state (non-CA resident) employee, employed as a telecomuter by a CA firm, who got a CA court to issue an order that his/her non-compete, while valid where it was signed and where the employee lives, was against CA law and therefore not enforceable in the employee's home state. A ruling by a CA court (or any other court) is enforceable nationwide (under the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution), and thus binding on his former (asshole) employer. I hear that CA courts may be easing up on this stuff for out of state employee-employers, but you have gotta love the intent.
Yes, I am a lawyer.
Whether or not non-competes hold any legal water, you still have to be able to fight them in court if your ex company tries to persue it. And, in order to effectively fight, you have to have money and time. But, if you're out of a job, you're probably not in the best position to fight anything. And, if you are willing to fight, odds are that the case will be dragged out for months or even years while they bury you in paper work (BTW, IANAL. insert more anoying acronyms here, etc. etc.)
I just went through this situation last year when I was looking at switching jobs. It ended up not being an issue, but the prospect of having to deal with it in court was just a little unnerving. It's not enough to be right. Unfortunately, you have to have enough money and time to prove you're right in court. And, a private citizen just doesn't have to resources a corporation has.
So, needless to say, with my last job hunt I learned from my mistakes. When one of the companies I was interviewing with gave me an offer and asked me to sign a non-compete, I turned it back on them. They wanted all these things including 3 weeks notice before leaving. And, if they couldn't find a replacement for me in those 3 weeks, I had to pay their lost consulting revenue until they found one - or I could stay on until they found someone. So, I told them that I wanted 3 weeks notice before layoffs, firings, or any other termination of employment, and if I couldn't find a job in those 3 weeks, I wanted paid until I could find a replacement position. I didn't wait for their answer and just took another offering, but I wonder what they would have said. It's really not a great IT job market to be negotiating these sorts of things.
Actually, things like welfare and universal health coverage are good for the economy. The former does things like flatten out the business cycle by increasing spending counter-cyclicly (to people who will spend all the money on goods and services instead of saving it) and the latter reduces costs to the overall economy by improving health standards (it's cheaper to prevent illness than cure it)
But more importantly, they're a sign of a civilised society.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
Well the guy was a major asshole and abusive. I was fired or quit depending on who you talk to only on the third day. Since they offered me a shitty substandard 7/hr for a tech job I was not real excited about it anyway.
I found another employer who I liked a month later that paid almost twice as much! No silly contract either. No lawsuits, nata.
Most employers that do this are either jerks, greedy, or under extreme financial pressure and you have to ask yourself, "do you really want to work for them"?
I read alot of comments here stating if somebody does not the clause then they should not take it. However under economic situations that may not be possible. I would also advise others to leave the field.
After all the industry is replacing you with Indians, putting in slimy clauses, treating you like property, lobbiny congress to increase H1b1 visa's to brind down your demand to blue colar wages, etc! The other white collar industry does not have this bullcrap. Show them what you think. I for one will not put up with it.
http://saveie6.com/
Wow, that's pretty.. interesting.
I did a contract with Volt before. That company is basically resume stain. They did absolutely *nothing* to help me find another job after my contract ran out. Not a damn thing.
Contracting sucks. It really does. Companies like Spherion and Volt wind up being sweatshop employers. Ugh.
My wife went straight from college to mothering, and has never worked, so has few job skills. The company for whom I work (who shall remain nameless) just sold my position to a contracting company, with one weeks' notice. Despite their company policy, they are not giving me any severance whatsoever if I don't take the job with the contractors. The contractors *require* a two-year NCA, and stated unequivocally that anyone who would not sign would lose their job immediately. The contracting company is *huge*, and it is quite likely that any potential job I get may conceivably compete with them somehow.
Did I mention that there aren't really any jobs out there right now? Do you think I'm in a position to fight the contract? No, I signed, and I will try to tough it out as best I can. If I have to leave (or get fired) from the contractor, I will get a new job as quietly as I can, not tell my former boss, and hope they don't notice.
The idea that everyone has free choice in signing contracts is foolish. The bottom line is that a disproportionate amount of power is placed in the hands of employers during hard economic times. They should not be able to do anything they chose because of that. The solution you propose -- which as I read it is pure Laissez-faire -- was more or less tried in the 19th century. It resulted in horrible abuses, and horrible conditions for working people. It resulted in the unlimited importation of cheap labor from foreign countries (every read "The Jungle"?) It resulted in 60 hour work-weeks for 12-year-old kids. All this was done as good examples of "free enterprise". It was in reaction to these conditions that labor unions were formed and fair labor practices laws were passed.
It is no coincidence that these abuses started at a time of great economic growth (the Industrial Revolution.) The laissez-faire approach might work in a smaller economy. However, the creation of shared-stock companies has the effect of watering down the process of making ethical decisions so that no one feels personally responsible. Instead, everyone operates on a scheme of plausible deniability. It is correct and appropriate in such cases for the government -- who created the shared stock company as a separate persona in its own right in the first place -- to take action to ensure just and moral practices.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Please think of this next Christmas when you're watching the Corporate News.
The NDA/NCA that I signed stated that any computer work I do while in company employ belonged to the company, not to me. There are a couple of ramifications to this.
I am effectivly barred from contributing to any open source product while with my current employer. The code I write is not my own, therefore I cannot contribute it to an open source project. Even contributing a cool idea that I may have up with could cause that project trouble in the long run.
I have absolutely ZERO motivation to work on any side projects at home. Why should I? The second I put pen to paper and sketch out a design it belongs to someone else. Knowing that any personal projects didn't really belong to me just sticks in my craw and saps any and all motivation.
If Grandma calls me in the evening with a computer question I have to bill her for the answer. Answering her question would be performing computer support work, and my labor would, therefore, belong to the company, not to me.
In California this is a right-to-work state so those non-compete's don't have any effect because you have to work to make a living and the only way to work is to practice your trade.
In the end, if it came down to it, and non-competes were enforced on everyone then only beginners who have never been in the field would be able to get a job.
I don't believe in breaking contracts but I do consult with a legal representative before signing my agreements (yeah, the $5k retainers suck)... in the end, non-completes and contracts that aren't nagotiable aren't legally binding. Anything I invent in my own time isn't theirs, either.
Of course, it's been attempting to claim something of mine I wrote they argued that because they were paying me a salary I was on their time. A few facts first... in California, unless you make about $100k you are not exempt from being paid overtime (you are not "salaried" so that argument didn't hold up well because I wasn't pre-approved for overtime when working at home or they refuse to pay me for all the hours I worked at home because for purposes of overtime pay, they don't recognize "what [I] do in [my] own spare time".
Next, it didn't hold up because I spent quite a sum of money on dev tools and support incidents at $245 a pop with MS and while they company was quick to point out that I was working on their time ("in the garage at my home") when asked if they would expense those expenses because it was "their time" they said what I do with my own money in my own time is not their responsibility.
Next when they were asked why they hired me they responded that they hired me because I have well established experience doing exactly what I do, and what I did for them. I didn't learn it on the job and I didn't pick up any secrets while working there. Further more, what I did in my own spare time didn't even relate to the company or any of my responsibilities at the company or any of anyone elses responsibilities at the company, they just wanted to tell me I couldn't publish an article in a magazine because of "that clause in the agreement". The judge dissagreed.
Next, they would not allow me to negatiate any of the terms of the "confidentiality agreement" concerning the matters listed above therefore the judge didn't think we entered into a legally binding agreement.
When they tried to argue that I "might" be divulging trade secrets by proposing the manuscript to the publisher (that contained working source-code of something fairly unique) they were asked to provide a copy that I signed that specifically told me what trade secrets and since I had never been told specifally what trade secrets (only that I may encounter trade secrets) the judge didn't think there was any stadning because how could I have known what trade secrets? in the end, there weren't any.
The list goes on. In the end, I've established legally with the company that I can do whatever I want in my own spare time as long as it isn't substantially similar to their interests but is also common in the trade if it is close to their interests (for example, all businesses need a contact manager, inventory, services, shipping & receiving system of one type or another but not all businesses are niche (where niche is substantially close to the companies interests)). I can work anywhere I want (even a direct competitor) when I leave -- in California and if I have come in contact with trade secrets, they have to notify my in writing of which so I can know)...
I'm still employed and doing fine at the company. I plan soon to start asserting my right to publish articles on advanced topics in my field of trade (I'm a programmer).
In the end, you cannot sign or agree to anything in these agreements that conflict with what rights you have under the law. It is worth it to consult with a legal rep. before you sign anything because you'll see just how weak (or strong) certain clauses in the agreements are (or aren't).
Thanks,
Leabre
In Canada at least, I thought the supreme court ruled that a non-compete clause could not prevent you from earning a living, supporting your family, etc etc. Basically it rendered the clause was rendered useless.
has a "right to work" law. It basically states that you as an individual have a right to work. If a company has made you sign a non-compete, they can not force you not to work. They can either pay your salary until the clause is over, or let you go. You just can't use proprietary information from the old in the new.
While working as a contractor at Ford, a new form appeared one day that I was required to sign. It was an addendum to the contractor agreement which covered all intellecutal property either real or imagined. It also stated that Ford had ownership any thoughts I might have while at work or off hours. It was unbelievable.
After months worth of managers badgering me to fill out the form, I signed it "Mickey Mouse" and returned it.
IANAL, but if you don't sign using your real name is the document legal? Your honor, exhibit A. An Intellectual Property agreement signed by Mickey Mouse? Huh? What?
Also, I learned that even if you do spend $$$ on a lawyer then go to court and get a judgement in your favor, it can be nearly impossible to collect and you are out lawyer fees. Let an exemployer sue me and a non-compete. I won't even show up. They can get a summary judgement and try to collect.
Also, it is a good idea not to tell a current employer why you are quitting or where you are planning to work next. The less information anyone has the better off you are.
IMHO when an employer stops paying me, all agreements with them are null and void. However, if I run off with trade secrets or proprietary info then that's a different matter, but I believe we already have "corporate espionage" laws which cover this.
I am not sure what is going to kill America first, "stupid people" or "lawyers".
Although no one is ever "forced" to sign a contract, economic reality coupled with a near uniform application of employment practices is making this near impossible.
These contracts are taking the place of actual legislation. If every company makes you sign an agreement that says "I promise not to ever sue for sexual harrassment or I will not get any severance or pension", then in effect, the contracts have negated sexual harrassment laws. You then have to fight your employer in court, at which point the balance of power is very much against you.
I was presented with such an agreement when working for a company (X) that was bought by another larger company (Y). We became a division of the larger company. The agreement said "you may not work for any past, present, or future clients of company X, nor may you work for any past, present, or future companies of company Y, for a period of three years".
I fought like hell to not sign it, and in the end, I was told "we're not putting a gun to your head to sign this, but if you don't sign it, you will no longer be employed with us". It was enough of a threat to sign it. I left the company about 3 months afterward, didn't tell them where I was going, and never heard from them again.
Why don't you just take all of the money from the rich and give it to the poor. That will make this country successful, eh comrade?
Life in Orange County
IANAL, but I have this textbook concerning Finnish business law, which is written as a series of FAQ meant to be easily understood by small business owners and self-employed people. One point specifically deals with non-compete agreements:
- The total duration cannot ever exceed 1 year, under any circumstance.
- If the duration is 1 month or less, the employee is not entitled to any compensation.
- If the duration exceeds 1 month, the employer must continue paying the full salary and benefits until the non-compete agreement has expired.
IIRC other EU countries deal with this in a similar way.Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
My brother lost his job over not signing a non-compete. He was in the middle of developing a new product line for the company, and they said "well, finish up the development first", and he did. It was a new technology for the company, too: sending data over the power lines.
Then he was let go.
He explained not signing by pointing out that (1) the agreement was not legal [there were clauses in it that would never be upheld in court, including not working in any competing field for 10 years, including any field that the company later got into], enslaving, and wrong.
The company explained it by saying that getting their bank loans renewed depended on them getting all employees to sign these agreements. True or not, I do know that the company was in some level of loan trouble -- so I do consider it possible.
Anyone else know for sure?
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
I've experience something similar to this while working for an oil company. The setup was kind of complicated: first, the oil company (1. PDVSA) gets offered a project by their IT service company (2. Intesa). Since this company, in turn, doesn't have enough employees to do that project, they hire a few temps, which is done using a third company (3), similar to an agency. While the temp has to answer to a supervisor from company 2, in paper, he's a contractor for the third company, so when they dispose of him for whatever reason (including, but not limited to, the successfull completion of the project), 1 and 2 can come up with clean hands.
Since non-competes are illegal in Venezuela, they resorted to a kind of informal scam. The agencies and company #2 agreed (verbally) not to hire anyone from another agency until 45 days had passed. This was of course illegal as well, but since it wasn't written anywhere, nobody could sue. Both #2 and #3 take a slice of the payments made by #1 to me, and in return i get nothing at all.
I've never had a full time steady job, and i think some of the blame belongs to the 'system' I just described.
I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
Same thing happened to my husband. He was at his company for two years. They came out with this non compete in their employee manual which everybody had to sign. Besides him not being able to go to another ISP anytime soon, his spouse couldn't work for a competitor either. So essentially, they limit who I can work for as well... He didn't want to sign it, but they were going to blacklist anybody who didn't. We both know that was intimidation and he'd have grounds to fight... neither of us have any ability to afford a lawyer though.
This is what Microsoft means when they clamor for "free markets and competition": high-tech feudalism and indentured servitude.
If Microsoft were replaced with a dozen or so smaller companies that were in competition with each other, they couldn't afford to do this sort of thing to their workers.
What is your address again? I'd like to test out this theory of yours... good for the economy, but not for you? That's a really outlandish idea... it... it just might work!
Before we sign off on it, though, we'll need to test your hypothesis.
Black and grey are both shades of white.
I have signed and been frelled by a non-compete agreement. I honored it, but NEVER AGAIN. I will NEVER SIGN another non-compete agreement, ever.
Folks, do yourselves a favor, Negotiate the Hell out of your non-compete. Do NOT accept it as it is offered to you. Make them go back and forth a few times to pear out things. e.g. instead of general non-compete, make them name customers. Also make it so that they have to supply you a list of clients you cannot service upon your termination. Make sure to try to make them make it as specific as possible (e.g. the less "general" the better) or better yet, pass it up and let the next sucker sign it. I know, it's hard in this George Bush II burger flip economy.
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
About the only non-compete I will ever agree to (and in fact, have agreed to) is that I won't go seeking business from his customers. If they come to me, I feel somewhat obligated to let him know about it, so that he can fix whatever issue may have caused them to seek me out.
Other than that, I will never sign an NCA (an NDA is another matter) nor would I ever expect anyone I hire to do so. Stuff like that gives me a rash.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
from what i've heard from my uncle who is a lawyer (he looked over one i signed) it's too broad to hold up in court. You need to have specific geographic locations, limit it to a specific field, and it has to be a reasonable amount of years.
http://www.vanillaafro.com - take me seriously and I will shoot you
Otherwise they are shifting the cost of their policy either onto the ex-employee (who forgoes benefits) or the insurance fund (who has to pay out more due to the NCA)
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
Believe it or not, most people in the US see this as the class warfare tripe that it is, and most of them don't agree that rich people are "assholes". Why? Because most of those people are looking forward to the day when they too get to be "rich". And when they "arrive" they don't want to be greeted by a bunch of rabble rousers who have nothing to offer but the concentration of power in the hands of politicians who "earn" their money at the points of guns and convoluted legal systems.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Sorry, but the US legal system is not here to ensure that powerful corporations can ensure their former employees remain jobless, or can only get a job in an area outside of their profession (e.g., hamburger flipping). These kinds of contracts are comparable to loansharking contracts, or contracts for slavery. They are meaningless before a court of law.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
The only non-compete's I've ever signed have basically stated I would not call on my current customers for 1 year after my last call with them. This is sound and reasonable, after one year much of the sway you have as an insider is gone and yet you can still work your trade with all the other potential customers out there. The consultancy I am about to start with has a blanket NCA that I have already told the owner I refuse to sign. He asks that you not practice your trade in a 50 mile radius of the HQ for 3 years. I told him I would bring forth one of my other NCA's and sign it for his company but that I would not force myself to move just because I was no longer working for him. I mean every time you move you lose a ton on realestate agent fees, mortage fees, etc. Besides I like being near my parents and my wife loves being near the inlaws, not being near them would be a major quality of life decrease for me.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Ah, but who's more likely to spend it in a helpful-to-the-economy way? That's the nasty
thing about this tax-cuts-to-improve-the-economy
BS - you really have to load it towards the wealthy and secure, because the poor and insecure will
sock it away in their mattress or spend it on the gas bill or something unsexy like that.
BTW: how much tax is a 4-person, $45k family paying? I would think it would be very little - less than 2400, actually. No?
You can burn down my house, that will be good for the economy, but it certainly won't be good for me.
We are talking about civilized societies here. Personally, the misfit in me partially desires burning people like you alive, rather than your house. It doesn't mean such an action would be civilized.
We can have anarchy, or we can have civilization. The desire of the few which are contrary to civilization are deservingly suppressed.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
I'm not going to get into an argument about Microsoft. I truly don't have an opinion about them (at least not one I'm going to get bogged down in a debate over).
....Bethanie....
What I will mention, though, is that if someone is having a helluva time finding acceptable employment conditions in a specific job market, then maybe s/he should consider getting trained in and pursuing another field of endeavor.
Sure, it's not the easiest thing to do (who said life is easy?), but if you feel like you're getting sodomized at every turn in a particular industry, then, by all means, GET THE HECK OUT! (Unless, of course, that sort of thing is your bag, baby.)
What else would you suggest is the solution? I'm all ears... eyes... whatever.
Straight from my lawyer: If you live in a "Right to Work" state, your non-compete is probably worth zilch to your employer (or former employer), other than as a scare tactic.
I left a company a couple of years ago in a right to work state. They sent me a letter after I left, stating I could not do web development in the region the company operated (I had been a wev developer for them). However, after a call from my lawyer to their lawyer, they backed off fast. Even their lawyer wouldn't back there play!
Check the laws in your state.
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
Believe it or not, most people in the US see this as the class warfare tripe that it is, and most of them don't agree that rich people are "assholes". Why? Because most of those people are looking forward to the day when they too get to be "rich". And when they "arrive" ... [blah blah blah]
Well, your "most people" who think they're going to "arrive" are just deluding themselves. Do you make less than $300,000/year? You're NOT rich. You're not likely to become rich, either. Unless you're waiting for Uncle moneybags to die, waiting to get that $3 million/year contract from (insert sports team here), or have incriminating evidence on your boss/board of directors.
It's like when the Republicans were going around calling the inheritance tax, the (cue spooky music) "Death Tax." Lots of people were against it, naturally. Of course, unless they inherited a quarter million dollars, or more, they wouldn't get hit by it. People were fooled by the weasel words and/or by deluding themselves into thinking they were going to inherit a ton of money (that should rightly be taxed).
Mod me down and I shall become more trollish than you can possibly imagine!
Nay, employers don't pay unemployment -- we all pay unemployment. If my employer has to pay X dollars more a month per person that they have on staff that's a per-employee expense that's taking funds away from my salary. Personally I'd much rather have that cash on my paycheck so I can invest it how I wish for a rainy day.
Another semi-socialistic government program that I would rather see left by the wayside.
The salutory effects of a decent social net on the economy are real and substantial: it's why Europe, with a higher unemployment rate, is supporting a higher standard of living on a variety of scales than the US is, despite the US' higher mean per-capita income (that higher mean per-capita income disappears once you lop the top 1% of wealth off the scale, too.)
But those who've swallowed the market-fixes-everything Kool-Aid won't believe it.
"Another way of putting it, 50% of the tax relief goes to 95% of americans, the other 50% goes to the top 5% of wage earners....seems fair to...rich assholes"
The top 5% of wage earners paid 56.47% of the federal income tax in 2000. So it seems Bush's tax cut is in proportion. Why do you blanket all rich people as 'rich assholes'? Do you even know the salary range of the top 2-5%?
I'm somewhat curious about information other people have to give on this issue. I recall reading an article once (sorry, don't remember exactly where) that in Germany, the "minimum wage" (or whatever their equivalent is) jobs are generally held by resident aliens because the government dole is close enough to that minimum wage that the citizens would rather not take the low paying jobs.
Anybody have better feedback on this? It's hard to validate all this of course because my information comes from American media.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
If you signed the non-compete out of CA, or if the company that you joined is based outside of California, the non-compete *may* be enforceable. From this web site:
Are you an employee considering leaving the company, or an ex-employee who has resigned or been fired? Did you sign a noncompete agreement while working in another state?
Did your employer have you sign any form of an employment, noncompete, nonsolicitation and/or nondisclosure agreement? Were you forced to sign it? Were you fired for not signing the agreement, or for protesting about it?
Does your employer appear "headquartered" out-of-state, or have you signed any employer document indicating the law of a state other than California applies to interpretation or enforcement of the document you signed?
Did you sell your business or interest [e.g., stock] in a company and execute a noncompete agreement as part of the transaction?
Has the employer or its lawyers threatened you with legal action for violating a noncompete?
If your answer is YES to any or all of these questions, you should IMMEDIATELY seek the advice of competent counsel experienced in noncompete battles. Even if you have not yet been threatened with legal action, talk to a lawyer so to determine your rights. Remember, the employer had lawyers prepare the noncompete agreement you signed, so you should have a lawyer too.
In any case, please spare me your anarchy vs. civilization speech. "Civilized societies" can destroy property as much as anarchists can. They just do it for the so-called good of the economy.
Pay me X months of severance pay and I promise not to compete for X months. Simple.
My wife (in New Zealand) works for a language school and has a clause in her contract not to start up another language school with-in two years within 200km of her current employer. This clause is being broken left right and centre in the language school industry in Christchurch.
I think it sux. It probably won't matter soon with SARS threatening the industry, but I'll certainly advise her not to sign such a contract again.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
No, it won't be good for either you or the economy. This is the broken window fallacy which says that somebody going around throwing rocks through windows helps the economy by increasing the business of window repairmen. The flaw is that it ignores that the money spent on repairs would otherwise have been put to more productive uses.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
In the 90's these terms were easy. But not these days. When the supply of developers exceeds the demand then the company has the upper hand fair and square. There is nothing that you can do against it....
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
When are our goverments going to start to cater to those who elected them instead of corporations? Let's face it, these contracts are not good for us.
A company/corporation should keep its employees by being a good company to work at, and who wants to screw someone who has been very nice to you? Some people do, and that is one needs to be careful with whom you hire, can't let the contracts try to sort out the hiring proceses.
I know, it's hard in this George Bush II burger flip economy
GWB's administration did not create this bad ecomony, he inherited it. Go study economics at a college level and you'll find that in the US there's about a 8-12 month lag from an economic turning point and the nationwide fallout from that turning point.
The turning point in this case was the last burst of accelerated Y2K business preparations followed by the abrupt cessation of abnormally high business activity after everyone discovered that Y2K was not such a big deal after all in terms of how it affected business ops.
Not at all.
This is 'good for the economy' in the same way that eating a big bag of sugar is good for your body. Yes, it can produce a short term energetic boost, but only at the expense of longterm well-being.
Again untrue. In fact it does exactly the opposite. By decoupling the decision to consume from the obligation to pay, these schemes explicitly destroy the mechanisms which previously kept cost low and quality high, and have resulted in skyrocketing health care costs.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
You are partly right. I am an american who worked for a german software company (Software AG) in Darmstadt for 3 years. I probably do not have it all correct but here is what I understand. After WWII Germany had a large problem with too few men. As a result they invited the "guest workers" from other countries to come in and take positions that were not filled. Of course they were mostly the lower paid positions. As I understand it, the German Arbeits Amt (Work Office) requires unemployed people to to look for work but not at a large step back from their last postion. At some time their unemployment will run out anyways. In the mean time the lower positions are already filled with people that have had them for many years. Or they may be filled with their kids where are German citizens. Would it be fair to kick them out of their jobs?
that's how it works in France.
You signed a non-compete agreement, have been fired/resigned. You can look for a job anywhere, if you land one, you must tell your former employer, who will then decide if he wants to enforce the non-compete part of your contract. If he does, he has to pay for your salaries for the period he prevents you to work.
i had a sig, once..
I think you're the one that's drinking some crazy kool-aid.
I know what I'm talking about firsthand, I live in Sweden, and I have recently developed a need for medical attention.
Europeans are healthier for a host of reasons, attitude, diet, and lifestyle come to mind. It has absolutely nothing to do with the absolutely god-awful excuses for health care services that prevail here however. Except, perhaps, in an indirect way - knowing that health care is so worthless here does give one a bit of an extra incentive to eat right and exercise more.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Completely true. And it's exactly the same fallacy at work in the parent posters claim that welfare is good for the economy as well.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Well, your "most people" who think they're going to "arrive" are just deluding themselves. Do you make less than $300,000/year? You're NOT rich. You're not likely to become rich, either. Unless you're waiting for Uncle moneybags to die, waiting to get that $3 million/year contract from (insert sports team here), or have incriminating evidence on your boss/board of directors.
Yeah, that's right - no one can make it in the world today. There are no smart people left in the world and we all need to rely on Uncle to take care of us.
It's like when the Republicans were going around calling the inheritance tax, the (cue spooky music) "Death Tax."
Yeah, that sounds about right. Someone dies, and the government wants money. Sounds like a "Death Tax" to me.
Lots of people were against it, naturally. Of course, unless they inherited a quarter million dollars, or more, they wouldn't get hit by it.
So $250k that what anymore? A house, half of a house? Your [uncle|father|brother|misc] can't leave you a house with out the government getting a chunk of it?
[liberal whining cut] inherit a ton of money (that should rightly be taxed).
How the hell do you figure that inheritance should be taxed? I'm going to say this slow so you'll understand.... *It's* *already* *had* *it's* *taxes* *paid* *on* *it*. It's this kind of thinking that has put the country in the shape it's in. We already pay *WAY* too much in taxes. Makes me kind of sick really.
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
>Here is a simple fix... get a real welfare system... you may have been told its to expensive, but the truth is far poorer countries look after the unemployed with fare more respect.
Thanks for proving why not to implement welfare.
For the logic impaired, he just explained:
Poorer countries use "Real" welfare systems.
Therefore, by simple analysis, to avoid being a poorer country, don't implement a "Real" welfare system.
>Remember 100% employment is a delusion!!!!
Of course it is. There are always lazy fucks who don't deserve to eat. That's their problem. Best we weed the lazy gene from the pool sooner rather than later.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
In Belgium you can sign any NCA you want and use it for toilet paper 5 seconds later unless: + you are above a certain salary + you have a certain type of job (sales, managment,...) + you resign yourself (getting fired cancels all NCA) + your employer pays you a monthly check during the entire duration of the NCA
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
Duh retard.
Universal healthcare is good for me a worker.
Universal healthcare is bad for him, CEO of insurance company.
Let's see now, who's interests should i vote to protect? gee, duh i donnoo...me stupid american...i know, i'll vote to help the CEO!
Then most of the people are stupid. History shows that when you rely on a job from somebody else, they have the power to hurt you. Our society is supposedly based on our ability to work hard and prosper. One of the ways to do this is to get a better education. As university graduates this year will tell you, it ain't working. Blame all you want on the bad economy but that is not the whole picture. Every, and I do mean every, big high tech company is transfering more manufacturing and now as much engineering work out of the country. They built the expensive mess in Silicon Valley and elsewere and now are abandoning the workers for India, China and Russia. Who do you think is helping the "comrads"?
After disclaiming socialism you go on to make it clear that is exactly what you're promoting. From each according to his means, to each according to his need, that was the socialist mantra. You ask 'who do you think needs the money more?' and thus implicitly base your analysis on that same tired mantra.
The 'rich' people get more relief under any fair tax cut, because they're the ones who're getting soaked more under the status quo.
And the people we're talking about aren't really 'rich' either, that's a big fallacy that the promoters of national socialism in the US always hide behind - but the fact is the truly rich pay little to no taxes and always have. The people that pay high taxes are the most productive workers - not the people that are rich and don't need to work for wages to begin with.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Not doing too good for who? I am sure that in all of them the people with money and jobs get additional coverage somehow. At least those without coverage can get seen without having to be dying first.
I have a NCA in my contract too, but in Belgium the law has placed some reasonable limits on it.
1. The duration of any NCA is limited to 1 year.
2. It cannot be overly broad.
3. It only applies if the employee takes the initiative to leave the company.
4. When the employee leaves, the company has 2 weeks to tell him whether they want to enforce it or not
5. If the company chooses to enforce the NCA, they have to pay the employee his full salary for half of the duration of the NCA, so if you're under NCA for 1 year, they have to pay you 6 months worth of salary.
6. In case of a suspected violation of the NCA, the burden of proof is on the company to show that they actually suffered damages. Courts tend to side with the employee on these matters.
So despite what many Americans think, there really are some benefits of having a socialist government.
Is there some other remedy whereby companies can protect themselves from employees suddenly departing?
Bad enough to lose critical people at any time, a double whammy when they go to a competitor and turn their mad skillz on you, lifting half the customer base at the same time.
Clearly, if everyone is treated fairly, such a nightmare scenario won't happen.
Now, who decides 'fairly'?
Then you have the government case. Flag officer departs the Pentagon, goes to work for Raytheon or Lock-Mart. Knows all the details and phone numbers. Do you think that's a Good Thing?
Maybe arbitration is a good way to get some kind of objective look at it. You agree at hire-time that the company can require binding arbitration upon departure and re-hire...
The only losers in that scenario are the sharks...
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
- Limited in time
- Limited in geographical area
- Financially backed by the ex-employer
I believe most EU countries have such a system. That reequilibrates the power between big contracting companies owning all jobs of a kind in a region, and potential employees - esp. in tough times.Actually, there's a problem here. America is technically a common-law country, and also has laws prohibiting ex-post-facto decisions. However, the way our government has behaving, it may as well be a written-law country.
What I am saying is that it is currently unenforceable. However, you need a specific judgement to get your contract in specific thrown out, and to go after a specific judgement, you need to challenge the company and get fired. May as well not sign, then. Without the specific judgement, if the country later changes its laws to say that it *is* enforceable, then you've just been sold up the river.
Further, the boss may have been truthful, in that the bank requires these agreements, then it is the bank that wants the slave-owners. It is also the bank that is slowly taking control of the company. So if that is so, then they clearly have more than enough assets to harrass ex-employees out of any useful labor. See some of the other posts in this line, and you will see that some of these companies really do use their contracts to violate the law.
It might be interesting to go into a class action lawsuit against all companies that require these NCAs, and -- where applicable -- specifically reflect the class action lawsuit to the banks, if the NCAs were required by the banks as terms of loan agreements, since the loans are often forced on the small business (that is, it is a case of take the loan, or get seized in foreclosure). But when I say interesting, I don't say good. Theft in response to theft doesn't really solve anything. It just makes the problems bigger and deeper. The best response may be to just start publicizing lists of slave-driving executives, unjust executives, and weak executives who don't protect their people. In other words, have a list of "who is currently being evil or weak". Then submit that list to Forbes magazine every year, as well.
That way, investors can stay away from companies driven by such leaders. Would that make sense to investors? I really think it would make sense to the smartest of them, since a business is properly viewed not as an investment, but as a reaction chamber that has to maintain 4 ingredients in a proper mixture: investors, workers, customers, and working fluid[$]. Destroy too much of one or another, and you have a business that cannot last.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
I lived in Japan for eight years, and I had universal health care the whole time.
;-) ). Could the ready availability of decent health care have something to do with this longevity in the face of excess? I think so.
What I observed during that time is that the high-end of medical care in the US is higher and better than that generally available in Japan, and hospital rooms are a lot posher (I was hospitalized for a week there once, and while it was rather spartan, it also cost me very little), the Japanese average is much closer, and the low-end is much, much better than the U.S. (where the low-end is people with no insurance and low income, who often can't afford much medical care and put it off until the emergency room is needed).
The Japanese universal health insurance system works like this: you have national health insurance. It may be the general public insurance type, or it may be the employer-paid type, depending on your job (full-time workers generally have the latter).
If you need medical care or dental, you go to the provider of your choice, so long as they take national health insurance (the great majority do) and pay the co-payment (30% for the fomer type, 10% for the latter type) and you are treated. No forms, no muss, no fuss.
How much you pay for insurance depends on your salary the year before, so if you're poor, that makes your health insurance nearly free (yes, there is an upper cap on premiums; having a good salary doesn't put the whole thing into health insurance).
Japanese national health insurance has something of a looming liquidity problem as a result of a rapidly aging population, but that doesn't detract from its effectiveness at getting people decent health care.
Japan has the longest life expectancy in the world, for both men and women, despite how much so many Japanese men drink, and despite how many of them are heavy smokers (most Japanese men smoke, as do an increasing number of Japanese women, and based on my observations, I'd guess that the average Japanese male smoker consumes at least a pack a day, and heavy drinking after work is quite common (commuting by train has its advantages
This is 'good for the economy' in the same way that eating a big bag of sugar is good for your body
That's hardly a good analogy. Welfare is consistent but will grow somewhat as unemployment grows. What you are describing actually is more like what central banks do to flatten the business cycle: they reduce interest rates and increase liquidity, giving the economy exactly that sugar rush, then have to do the opposite if the stimulus goes too far.
Again untrue. In fact it does exactly the opposite. By decoupling the decision to consume from the obligation to pay, these schemes explicitly destroy the mechanisms which previously kept cost low and quality high, and have resulted in skyrocketing health care costs.
Right. People get sick just to cash in on the health system. Seeing the doctor too often is much better than not enough. And the last time I looked, places like the US had skyrocketing health costs. Government health systems control health costs because the industry essentially has one customer - the government. The government sets how much it will pay for services and the doctors can like it or go without customers.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
"But, if you're out of a job, you're probably not in the best position to fight anything."
:)
If you're violating a non-compete agreement, you're not out of a job.
I was referring to the earlier argument that said this was good for the economy since it took money away from those who would save it and give it to those who would spend it. The bag of sugar is indeed a good analogy to that argument. Savings, in a modern economy, is the stuff from which loans come from, and that's how infrastructure gets built, new business start, etc.
People are more likely to seek medical attention for less serious conditions when they don't have to pay for it.
Not really. Either is bad. Seeing one too often raises the demand for his services, which is one of the reasons I have to wait 2 weeks to get a simple xray done here in the peoples republic of sweden...
Exactly my point. Thanks for supporting it.
And that's not an effective system, because of the calculation problem. The level of knowledge necessary for the government to set such policies rationally are entirely beyond the ability of even the best organised and best staffed organisation conceivable - let alone of a government. This is the basic flaw that caused the entire communist block to go bankrupt a few years back, it's a shame the so-called 'free world' seems so intent on emulating them.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
In Belgium, the companies that block you from joining other companies have to pay you for this.
And they can't block you longer than 6 months.
Cheers,
T.
My other sig is Funny.
Someone dies, and the government wants money. Sounds like a "Death Tax" to me.
Nah. Someone dies, the money comes in to you (who didn't die). Comes in. In come. Sounds like a reasonable tax to me.
So $250k that what anymore? A house, half of a house?
Where I live it's two houses. You, by your own voluntary choice, want a house in an area where houses are expensive, whose fault is that?
*It's* *already* *had* *it's* *taxes* *paid* *on* *it*
*Everything* has already had taxes paid on it. Many times. It's like oxygen. The O2 you breathe in today, somebody breathed in 2000 years ago. And by dinosaurs before that. The two bucks I spend for a beer, I already paid taxes on, should that mean the bar is tax exempt? Some people don't realize, you gotta pay for things somehow. You want to invade third-world countries, it costs money (you can't always steal it from their oil). You want to lock up people who smoke dope, it costs money. You want to give big subsidies to farmers, defense contractors, shopping mall developers, it costs money. You want star wars missle shields, it costs money. You want to hire border guards, it costs money. You want to build roads, it costs money. Why shouldn't you be taxed? We gotta pay for that crap somehow, we don't have all the kinks out of perpetual motion yet.
I am a foreigner who didn't graduate from college and who's not quite there yet in terms of income. But in any case, I'm sure this won't stop you from finding other insults and other stereotypes to pigeonhole me into.
Did you mean "yes, it won't be good for either you or the economy..."? Because I am agreeing with you -- I was pointing out the obvious fallacy in the original argument for welfare. The state of the economy, as it is measured and reported by our corporate media, is fallacious. And the state of the economy, as it argued and measured by the earlier poster and most democrats, is fallacious. "The flaw that it ignores", as you said, is not only present in my example, but it is also present in the earlier post arguing that welfare will improve the economy.
Sorry about that, I missed the context of your post. We're on the same page then.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The bank just pays the employee not to work for a period of around three months, during which time they are not permitted to work anywhere else. This is referred to in the City as "Gardening Leave". Note, someone jumping ship may well have another place to go to, that is permitted. However, they can't start work until the end of the "gardening leave". Both sides understand that.
See my journal, I write things there
Then most of the people are stupid. History shows that when you rely on a job from somebody else, they have the power to hurt you.
It works both ways. Historically, labor can, and does hurt industry as well. It can cost an employer a lot to fire you and hire someone else in your place. There's friction associated with losing a job, but there's also friction associated with losing an employee.
If what you say is true, then why do employers pay Americans such a high wage? If employers make so much money, then why don't banks lend to any small business that walks in the door (after all, if they make so much money the loan will *certainly* be paid back).
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
And more likely to undergo unnecessary tests and treatments (which doctors have a vested interest in recommending), and use name-brand drugs instead of cheaper generics, and in general completely disregard costs. This is basic economics; I'm glad you understand it and I wish more people did.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Easy.
Everything was income for somebody before. In fact, it is very deceptive, as the estate is not taxed, it is the recipients of the estate that are taxed.
It's treated nearly the same as any other income.
The first kind prevents you from working in your general field if doing so presents competition for your employer. This kind is very unethical and usually will not hold water in court. Some states, like Georgia, have specific laws making such agreements illegal and punishable by civil fines. Some people still sign them, but in general it is either illegal or at the very least not recognized by courts that one employer can prevent you from getting a job in the field in which you have your expertise.
The second kind prevents you from soliciting customers from your employer if you leave and go to work for a competitor. This type is ok as far as I can tell as it prevents companies from planting people in their competitors' companies just to steal customers.
Not necessarily. Perhaps the repairman is far more likely to utilize that same money for more productive uses than the previous owner...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
are not allowed to stop you from working if you find a job. You still are bound by the contract you signed not to divulgate secrets but you are allowed to work for whoever you want!
I don't think it's as disproportionate as you make out. Companies do better if they hire good people. Quick savings by employing cheaper people or firing people for stupid reasons generally cost far more than they save in the long run due to higher training costs, lower morale and other factors that all lead to reduced productivity.
As I understand it, in the US either the employer or the employee can terminate the employment without notice. That means that in an employer's market, they have more power to set rates, but in an employee's market, it's the other way around. Since these things cycle every so often, it is prudent for both sides to act reasonably when they have the advantage so as to be seen as a stronger option when they do not.
Of course, not everyone or every company does this, not by a long shot. Even so, while one side will usually have a degree of advantage at any given time, it will even out after a while. What we're seeing in the programming industry right now is the balancing of the absurd overpayment pretty underpowered employees came to expect in the late '90s. So it goes.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
For example, I should theoretically support the right of a worker to sell himself into slavery; after all, if it is his very own freedom, is it not his own freedom to sell?
But you don't support it, because as soon as the worker can legally sell him/herself into indentured servitude, it rapidly becomes the only way for anyone to get a job. Sadly, a lot of other Bad Things have already come to pass this way.
Freedom: "I won't!"
You can only lose unemployment benefits if your non-compete causes you to become "unavailable" for work. A non-compete that is specific to a single company (in this case Microsoft) would never result in the loss of unemployment benefits. This guy is either lying or badly misinformed when he claims that turning down the job with Microsoft would have caused him to lose unemployment benefits.
In most states, any non-compete that makes you unavailable for other work would be unenforceable because it is overbroad. And to the extent that there is any ambiguity, lax enforcement by the state departments of employment would allow the employee to continue to declare himself "available" without any serious fear of action by the state.
The two bucks I spend for a beer, I already paid taxes on, should that mean the bar is tax exempt?
No, it shouldn't be tax exempt. You're getting a service or some sorts of goods from it. This is why it's called sales tax. If they taxed that income a second time, or taxed you twice for the same property (as with the inheritance tax) then it's wrong.
Don't get me wrong at all, I agree fully with paying taxes and have refused to do business with places that cheat on taxes (man I miss that place sometimes, great prices on used hardware).
The only purpose of the government is, as a group, do what can't be done by an individual. I can't build a road, raise an army or administer justice (tho I've been tempted before). These are good things, and they do in fact cost money. Lots of money. But, there is so much waste and [Federal|state|local] jobs that really have no purpose other than to keep the position they are in. The people of this nation are over taxed (and there are way too many laws, but that's a different can of worms).
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
I know this won't get read, but I have to weigh in with this point that seems overlooked: NCAs are simply an artificial method to keep wages down. After all, you wouldn't generally worry about someone jumping ship if you were willing to pay them what someone else was; the NCA eliminates the conversation where the employee asks for a raise on the grounds he has an offer elsewhere. Hell, it eliminates the "offer elsewhere" entirely.
Hmmm, it also seems to interfere with the free market by eliminating currently employed people from the potential labor pool. If widely adopted, the standard NCA would effectively bring about a new Soviet-style state where no one could ever leave their jobs. But I guess theoretically you could still choose your first (and only) job. Sweet!
And the people who didn't use the extra money on that would be out on the streets, making things a lot less safe for the population as a whole.
I've hired many people and a non-compete is an essential element of my hiring process. There are a small number of companies out there which could gain an enormous advantage by stealing one of my employees and picking his brain. Reasonable NDAs are inadequate protection from this nightmare scenario.
This doesn't materially deter one of my employees from getting a job elsewhere in the industry. 99.999% of all software jobs are still open. It only prevents the employee from using the fact that he worked for me to land a job with my competition, which would gladly pay a premium inside knowledge about my company and technology.
In this market, if you aren't willing to sign a reasonable non-compete, I'll just hire somebody else. The specific benefits of hiring you aren't worth the enormous risk you want me to take. The "balance in the system" that you refer to, is the fact that you can decline my offer.
Upper level management can use the non-compete to negotiate a better severance package, but that's only for positions that would have received a severance package anyway.
Completely uneforceable. It's a right to work state, and any attempt in enforcing these in the past has failed.
Welfare is good for the economy because it leads to fewer angry people breaking windows.
Play the "corportae responsibility" trump card. Let them know that you are willing to sign the non-compete if-and-only-if they take responsibility for your unemployability while it is in force (like establishing a nice severence package *NOW*).. "If you have the power and desire to take away my livelyhood for your corporate gain for the time given, you will take responsibility for my livelihood until that period is over" .. or you can give me a nice lump sum.
meh
Personally, I think the employers with whom you have a non-compete agreement should be the ones paying you unemployment benefits.
They are. Along with employers whom you don't have non-compete agreements with.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Employers pay a percent of all employee's salary
into a fund. The rate is usually (in OREGON) based
on experience (number of people layed off).
This maybe an incentive for a restrictive non
compete agreement. If you can't draw benefits the
rate is not adversely affected (ie raised).
"Perhaps the unemployment should kick in when the non-compete expires."
Yeah that would be fair. Not only could they not find work, but they wouldn't have a safety net.
One general premise of keynsian economics is that poor people are LESS likely to sock it away in a mattress than rich people, because they need to spend it more. Rich people make a lot of money and save most of it, where poor people need to spend it all.
I'm not claiming that keysian economics is necessarily sound of course, but it's done pretty well for us. I think your argument is backwards.
Read jack phelps dot net
France and Germany have roughly 10% unemployment. USA have about 6%. The latter sounds better, doesn't it? Now, how about you add to that unemployment stats:
.... and I'm pretty sure the gap gets down to not much.
- People in jail
- People working to put and keep people in jail
- People doing useless and actually damaging work such as unsollicited telemarketing, frivolous lawsuits, etc, that don't exist in decent countries.
If you read the article, you'll see that section six says:
What this is supposed to do is allow Volt to regain their investment in dealing with your resume, interviews, payroll, etc. by preventing companies from putting out week-long or two-week long contracts to see if they like you.
It's also designed to prevent other temp agencies from using Volt's temps as a pool of resources for future contracts.
The fact that somebody from MS called some company and said "I want him" pretty much means that Volt should get stuffed (IANAL, YMMV, YRANA, etc.)
This whole thing might have been avoided if Doug had called the MS guy back up and said, "call Volt". Then again, maybe not.
The fact that the Volt people are willing to engage in harassment and criminally coercive actions just means that I'll never be working for them again.
Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
If Volt had been unable to come up with a job for him in 6 weeks, they are clearly not doing enough for him, and if Microsoft managers are calling other agencies, they are not doing enough for Microsoft either.
Several ways around this ... the most direct is to take the job with the agency that has it and forget about the non-compete clause, which can get thrown out of court as "unconscionable" because it forces him to sit idle for 3 months after every contract with VOLT, while it does not obligate them to pay him anything for this idle period.
A clause which prohibited his switching job shops during active employment on a project, or from converting to a "consultant" on that same project protects the job shop from ship-jumpers and is not inconscionable.
I just mark through anything that restricts my freedom AFTER the natural end of a contract ... some agencies are unhappy, but I tell them that while I am willing to go along with the "anti ship-jumping" clauses, as soon as I am no longer working on the project they found the contract for I am a free agent and if they want to keep me exclusively theirs they can pay me a retainer fee for those months. They usually see the light. Only one agency has refused to initial the changes, so I tore up the application and threw it in the trash as I walked out.
I'm British, working in Oklahoma - could my employer (with branches in England) reasonably expect to prevent my sister working in the same field for a competitor?
Those are mostly rhetorical questions - I don't imagine any company would be stupid enough to try it...
It's only fair when you throw people into aggregates like that.
This tax cut is a tax cut for the rich and for families.
If you're middle class and single (no marriage penalty and no child tax credit) you get squat.
"Actually, things like welfare and universal health coverage are good for the economy. The former does things like flatten out the business cycle by increasing spending counter-cyclicly (to people who will spend all the money on goods and services instead of saving it) and the latter reduces costs to the overall economy by improving health standards (it's cheaper to prevent illness than cure it)"
And everyone starts going to the emergency room for a hangnail, (because it's "free") which overloads the system, which causes the government to start RATIONING it.
Which is what they do in Canada. Why do so many Canadians have surgery in the US? Because they can GET it done when it NEEDS to be done.
The government has done such a BANG UP job with the "war on drugs" and "war on poverty", and man, Social Security and Medicare are SO solvent, why would anyone in their RIGHT MIND turn over 1/5th of the economy to them?
A more Constitutional function for government wouldn't be providing "free" healthcare, but would be provding more oversight on employer/employee CONTRACTS...
Corporatism != Free Market
better than our health care. My dad's a doctor and to get prescription medicine, we have to take the sample pills the drug companies bribe him with.
While you're at it also kill all the disabled people who are unable to contribute to the society.
Ah but but the company I'm speaking of does... they mostly do this shit to make people want to quit so they don't have to worry about laying anybody off.
This is something about economics I do not understand - basically, when to allow terms to cancel, and when not.
Some say trickle-down economics is bad because it gives to the rich; others say that doesn't matter because they'll do business with the middle class.
Some say globalization is bad becasue it means jobs done here will be done elsewhere; others say that doesn't matter because we'll have cheaper goods and move on to more cutting-edge industries.
Some say tax cuts are bad because it grows the deficit, others say that doesn't matter because it will stimulate the economy, leading to surplus in the near future.
The list goes on and on. If everything were really based on "equal and opposite" type reactions, it wouldn't matter what we did, so that can't be right. But it seems there's no real way of guaging the transferrence of effects, and deciding when to cut off the evaluation.
We can have anarchy, or we can have civilization.
False dichotomy.
I do not have a signature
"Same thing happened to my husband. He was at his company for two years. They came out with this non compete in their employee manual which everybody had to sign. Besides him not being able to go to another ISP anytime soon, his spouse couldn't work for a competitor either. So essentially, they limit who I can work for as well... He didn't want to sign it, but they were going to blacklist anybody who didn't. We both know that was intimidation and he'd have grounds to fight... neither of us have any ability to afford a lawyer though."
THAT clause sounds like a criminal act to me. I'd send it to your state Attorney General. Pushing a noncompete on someone with threat of loss of job is duress. Pushing conditions that apply to a family member who DOES NOT WORK for them is even worse. They aren't compensating you, so they don't have any standing to enter into a contract. Not to mention they don't have YOUR signature.
The 13th Amendment outlaws slavery. It seems to me that many noncompetes, PARTICULARLY the one you just describes are a violation of that.
Corporatism != Free Market
Legally, unless you have poersonally signed a binding contract with them, they can NOT restrict anything you do. Your husband does not have the right to sign contracts in your name. And a contract signed under DURESS (sign or get fired) is not enforceable anyway.
Sounds like you definitely have grounds for legal action. If the company concerned is large enough, maybe one of those ambulance-chasing lawyers we all hate so much would take it pro-bono in the hopes of getting a big slice of punitive damages?
Who has 95%? The top 50%? The top 1%? The top 1% earns 20.81% of all income. The top 5% earns 35.30% of the pie. The top 10% earns 46.01%; the top 25% earns 67.15%, and the top 50% earns 87.01% of all the income. That's according to IRS data. Where's your data coming from? By the way, the starting salary of the top 1% is 293,000. So the top 2-10% earn much less than that. These are not super-rich multimillionaires.
"You're not likely to become rich, either."
You know those little cardboard sleeves that go around coffee cups? Someone invented them. He maxed out his credit cards and was in near povety. Now he sells over 20 million units each year and is living quite comfortably. Same goes for Kevin Smith, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Colin Powell and a whole bunch more than can be listed here. Your attitude, that one will never become rich, is a loser attitude and wrong.
I said elimiante unemployment insurance, not eliminate welfare. People who were down to that level would still qualify for welfare.
The villains in the article are not Microsoft but the contracting agencies (Volt, Excell, etc); they are the ones instigating the anti-worker contract terms and suing for their enforcement.
because who doesn't hate MS, right?
There are many reasons to dislike Microsoft, and - having endured their effects for years and carefully analyzed them many times - I subscribe to quite a few of them. Your implication that disliking Microsoft must simply be a reflex, along with your labeling of the article as "union rag", doesn't make you out to be any more thoughtful or intelligent than how you'd like to portray those who *are* in fact engaged in meaningful discussions on the topic.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Non-competes are unenforcable and to date (as far as I know) have NEVER gone to court. Microsoft has bullied people with their non-compete clause and forced people to fire their Microsoft employees. And when I worked at Amazon, they made me sign a 10 year non-compete.
Non-competes are inherently non-enforcable because they make it impossible for alot of people to find work in their field. True some people can go on to find work if their jobs were not specific in nature but for those whose jobs WERE specific to the company , a non-compete clause puts them out of work and keeps them out of work making it illegal.
I am honestly surprised that no one has ever challenged them to date.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Is it your position that an employer should have the right to extort any contract agreement from an employee whatsoever, nomatter how unresonable?
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
eliminating UI would make society less stable in general though. It's better to have people get a bit of money for a few months to cover a temporary gap in employment than to have them lose their house. The goal is to have few people on the welfare rolls.
Typicaly if a contract doesn't have a serverability clause then if one part of it is thrown out it all goes out. Which is why pretty much every contract you'll see has a clause that says if one part is thrown out the rest stands. As I recall this applies in most countries that trace their legal system from English common law. [IANAL but I've signed a lot of contract in a lot of countries]
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck load of tapes
Maybe, but that's not the point. The transaction in which I hire the repairman and he fixes my window is inefficient. Work is expended not to create wealth, but simply to restore the wealth that existed before in the form of my intact window. It would be better for all concerned if the government simply confiscated my money and handed it to the repairman; at least that way time wouldn't be wasted arranging for and performing the work.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Possibly, although there's pretty much no way to know that beforehand. And as I said, the same result can be achieved more efficiently by simply seizing my money and giving it to the repairman; breaking the window merely obscures that it's a welfare program.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
You are screwed!
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Yes, but there is sometimes a time limit on finding equal work. If the unemployment period stretchs for what they deem a moderate amount of time, you will usually be required to start drastically lowering your salary and career expectations. (As you will be doing, anyway, when the benefits run out all together).
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
The whole "some people will make it big" argument is pointless. Yes, some people will make it big. To be precise, rather few people will make it big. Even fewer will make it big by doing something useful. And sure, those people will arguably deserve to be better off than most other people. But how much? Enough to create third-world style income and wealth disparities? The point is that *everyone* can't make it big. And the people who do make it big depend on the existence of all the ones who don't. Someone has to do the actual work. Work is useful. The people who didn't make it big are not worthless. And in a system which is arranged to keep employment less than full for purposes of "marketplace discipline", even unemployment is useful. Or, if it isn't, it's at least required--deliberately built in. When unemployment gets too low, and the economy is considered to be "overheating" (which is to say, people might start demanding decent wages) then interest rates get pumped up to strangle the problem. Meanwhile, on an individual firm basis we know perfectly well that layoffs are essentially random nowadays. You can be a good worker who put in a good, and even innovative, day's work for 25 years and you're gone tomorrow--quick exit interview and led out by security. Given that, blaming the unemployed people for being unemployed, or people who work at boring, backbreaking jobs for working at them, is a bit beside the point. What would we do if they stopped? We'd find out what they mean when they say "Any urban area is 24 hours away from barbarism". If we're going to have structural unemployment, which *is* an economic choice, we have something of a duty to the people we have structurally unemployed. And if we're going to have a society that runs on hard work, we should pay decent wages to the people who do it. This mythology that the only people creating value are "entrepreneurs" like the folks who ran Enron is dangerous nonsense.
Since the majority of statements are made about the US, guess what? it's a free country, the US government will even help pay for you to start a business they love giving out grants, if you can't find an employer you like, then start your own business.
"Society less stable in general" is too vague to be meaningful, so I'll just respond about yrour claim that mortgage foreclosures would increase. There are already private credit insurance services, even though the market for such services is limited by the government forcing people to also buy the government's competing service. When people buy houses they plan a cushion for these things, and you can expect that banks would adjust their qualification criteria anyhow because foreclosure is generally quite unprofitable for them, since foreclosure involves doing a lot of work only to collect the money that is owed, and often less is collected. (By the way, for this reason, banks are also generally slow to kick someone out of his or her house when the bank is entitled to do so.)
In comparison, with unemployment insurance, we have the overhead of the government having to verify people's UI claims, seasonal companies optimizing their layoffs so their workers can collect full UI each year, a proably less competitive competitive labor force implementing the service (typically government workers are AFSCME members), and a lot of people paying for this service when they could better spend the money in more effective ways. For example, a person who has been employed for a long time and has saved enough for a job change, might be better of spending some of that money on classes or starting a side business (something that might create in the future).
Sorry, I should have proofread better. In the last sentence, "might be better of" should read "might be better off", and "something that might create in the future" should read "something that might create jobs in the future."
False dichotomy.
You're so smart. What was I thinking?
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Given the current "glut" of tech workers, companies can do anything they like and insist that you sign virtually any document. If you don't like it...next tech applicant please... All of us who live in the Peoples Republic of Amerika know that most court cases are won based on financial resources expended. If you cannot take on a corporation, give it up. For example, I know a number of tech workers who were fired right after they turned 50. They were absolutly forced to sign a myriad of "agreements" to get their pitance. One person told me that "the company" assured them that they would lose their house and savings before they ever had their day in court if they did not like it. The law in Amerika is by and for the wealthy like our politicians. O.J. - need I say more.
Yes, they DO pay ... but not enough.
What I want to see is that in cases where the employer is imposing an NCA that precludes you from working in your field, that they pay the FULL AMOUNT of the unemployment benefits for as long as the NCA is in effect (for a lifetime if that's what they wrote the NCA terms for), and that this time period not be counted against you for purposes of drawing on unemployment after the term of the NCA is overwith. So that means, if you qualify for 1.5 years of unemployment benefits, and your employer is imposing a 5 year NCA, then you have a total of up to 6.5 years of unemployment benefits, and the unemployment benefits fund only has to pay the last 1.5 years of that. Then the company can, at any time, write a letter to you and the agency processing the unemployment, stating they are nullifying or ending the NCA terms, and won't have to pay at that point any more than if they had routinely let you go, and you then begin normal unemployment benefits, free to take any job you can find. The unemployment system should NOT be required to carry the burden of these NCA practices.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Inheritance taxes aren't really double taxation because capital gains taxes usually weren't paid on the inherited property. Capital gain taxes aren't paid unless the property is sold; when the property is inherited (and not taxed), no taxes are paid on the existing capital gains when it is transferred to the heir. Inheritance taxes now make up for the unpaid capital gains taxes. Inheritance taxes are double taxation for the capital gains that were already paid; they are the only taxation for the portion of capital gains that were not taxed in the hands of the original owner.
I'll believe the reason for getting rid of the inheritance tax is to avoid double taxation when inherited property is transferred at the purchase price; then capital gains taxes will be applied and the inheritance will at least be taxed once. The current system looks a lot more like a tax break for the rich, with a double-taxation fig leaf to convince taxpayers that is fair.
-- Pot is safer than Beer
Is it wrong? Consider this -- your parents have a substantial business or a farm. Dad dies. The business is valuated at a few million dollars. Since it was procured during the marriage, it's deemed that half of it's already mom's. The rest was dad's, but he leaves it to mom. So now it's all hers, but she now owes approximately 25% of the total value to Uncle Sam. She can't afford to pay this out of her pocket, so she has to sell it. She's lost the business/farm.
It gets worse if the business was procured (by dad) before the marriage ... in that case, she owns none of it before his death, and therefore she's now liable for about 50% of it's value to Uncle Sam.
Ultimately, it kills family owned businesses.
Why is it still around? Because it makes the government a lot of money.
While the rest of us are living in the 21st Century, companies are regressing into the dark ages.
There is only one way out - become independently wealthy; have a job (such as writing novels) that does not require such BS (either that or win the Lotto - I haven't figured out which one I will pursue in earnest yet...)
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
I've seen wording in an NCA that said that "continued employment" is the benafit provided. Sounds like BS to me... I'm just glad I don't work there anymore...
It is more complex than that. Tax cuts are bad if they grow the deficit, except when the ecconomy is weak, in which case someone spending more than they make (ie the goverment) is a good way to get the ecconomy back on track. However when the ecconomy is strong the goverment needs to reduce spending to compensate.
This is a problem I have with conservatives in the mainstream, they proposed all kinds of new goverment in the late '90s when things were going good, instead of holding the line despite the goverment getting more money. No way to know because the systems are too complex, but I suspect that if goverment spending hadn't grown faster than inflation for years, we could now cut taxes without a deficit.
Exactly. This is also why the original parent is wrong, when s/he states: "Actually, things like welfare and universal health coverage are good for the economy."
While it may muffle some of the cylic nature of business, it does the exact same thing as the broken window premise.
Money spent on welfare and unemployment is money that would otherwise have been put to more productive uses.
Welfare and unemployment isn't good for the economy, welfare and unemployment is and will always be good for *only* the recipients. If a person wants to argue that welfare and unemployment benefits are a good thing, they should at least be arguing about the real benefit, a kind of social safety net.
You're probably not thinking. Anyone who thinks that civilization=confiscation from the workers/handouts to the bums, is obviously an non-thinking individual.
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
People are more likely to seek medical attention for less serious conditions when they don't have to pay for it.
I actually see the same in our current medical industry in the US. Just look at the commercials for any single hour of network broadcasting (hard to stomach, I know), and chances are that you'll see several advertisements for drugs that almost no one actually needs, yet are marketed towards a large audience. Some companies are even flagrant enough about this to not even mention in the ad what symptoms or problem the drug is supposed to cure, instead simply marketing it as a designer drug. Here is a system where people cash in on the system without needing to.
Ah, I see; people are jealous of the property owned by others, and since they don't get free handouts from the workers to buy similar property, it is understandable that they would want to vandalize that of others. Nice, circular argument. Usually, made by people with nice, block heads.
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
Well, that is the entire point of the Green Party..
Perhaps. And is it your right, or my right, to determine who 'deserves' this money more? I think not.
So, the repairman will simply have to repair a few more windows, have money of his own, and use it in the way he wants. But then, someone can come along and presume they know better what to do with this money than our hard working repairman. And so forth. Its usually these idiots who think of the economy as a pie; that there are percentages to be had, and if you miss out your 'share,' its because someone else has it.
The truth is, the economy works more like a stack. It can keep getting bigger, without meaning that someone's 'share' is getting smaller. It can be called growing the economy, or creating wealth, or whatever, but its a simple concept that tax-n-share liberals don't (or pretend not to) understand.
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
Good question.
In this case, there's two important facets to consider. The first, is taxation. While the window repairman may very well spend the earned money on productive uses, he won't have as much money to spend as the original wealth owner because he'll have to give a substantial portion of it up to taxes. (sales tax, property tax, income tax, etc.)
The second is qualifing what is considered "more productive" when it comes to spending. Typically in "growth" measurements for an economy, productive is used almost literally, meaning to "produce". At the very least, it means to "value add".
The second doesn't apply directly to the example, because the example is simplified into consumption goods. The more "productive" goods are capital goods (good used to produce other goods), or capital expenditures (buying capital goods, but also buying human resources used for things like R&D and increased efficiency).
So if a country is socking money into welfare and unemployment benefits, that means that people are being taxed to collect that money. That money may have been an R&D budget, or a new factory, or a new computer system to increase efficiency.
What the oster was proposing, was that by removing some of the "uncertainty" or "cyclical nature" of the economy by massive mandatory taxation for welfare and unemployment benefits, that was making a "better" economy.
If by "better" economy you mean one that's safer for all workers that find themselves out of work, then sure, welfare and unemployment benefits are good.
If you mean "better" for the economy by increasing wealth production, raising the general standard of living, or inciting "growth". Then his statement is obviously false.
What is he, a podiatrist?
Ok, barb aside, a doctor makes enough money to be able to afford medication for the family. If he has the freebie samples in his drug closet at work, it seems natural to raid that than go pay out for the same stuff.
Basically, I don't understand your argument.
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
Non-competes can't be that vague... They can only limit exact geographic regions, competitive timeframes (for the technology industry), and specific industries or products. A non-compete that tells you that:
a) you can't work in the tech industry [or even the dishsoap or whatever related tech industry] (none-the-less way too vague)
b) for an unreasonable amount of time (2 years or more for IT - in IT that's considered way too long)
c) competing against _any_ product in the industry
is not legal. Civil rights are still alive (at least here in the US). So basically any company that makes you sign a non-compete with any of those clauses [probably!] won't stand a chance in court.
They can make your non-compete legal by forcing you not to compete with their exact "work product" for a reasonable amount of time.
If you're ever presented with an outrageously vague non-compete contract, just modify it reasonably (ie. 1-2 years timeline for technology; specific work-product(s); and specific geographic region (your country)). If they have a problem with your modified Non-compete, don't walk away - RUN! On the other hand - try to work something out. If you don't your job could end up in some 3rd world country.
Bottom line: here in the US you have certain rights, but do your best to keep your opportunity while preserving your rights (and keeping the job here in the States).
Disclaimer: I work for an IP attorney
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
Good points. You know, its funny, here in the US, we complain constantly about HMO's. And with good reason; they are arrogant, not knowlegable (who wants a guy with MAYBE a high school education deciding what tests/procedures are allowed and what are not?), and ration health care in a way that we, as pampered Americans, don't like. But then the same columnists and media talking heads and 'social activists' who bash HMO's will praise a Canada/Europe/Japan/whomever style socialised medical system - which is basically a giant, government run HMO. I'm confused.
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
Why should it be taxed? It has already been taxed; to tax it again is unfair, and simply more of your class envy showing.
People are losing their family businesses because of this stupid Clintonista tripe. If some family has a business, lets say a butcher's shop, that has been in a building for 30 years, and did well enough that papa was able to buy the building and now makes a buck or two on leasing out the other few spaces, then papa keels over, guess what? The family gets hit with an inheritance tax on the entire lot, assessed by a caring, loving IRS beaurocrat. Now, they have to pay a hundred thousand dollars, so they have to sell the building, which incidentally contains their livlihood.
Are these the 'rich assholes' you guys keep mentioning?
You know, you people are just idiots. I am single, and when working my profession in the US, gross about 60k/year. Take away all the taxes, and its about 30k. How the hell is that fair? The US Consitution gives the US gov. certain powers and obligations, such as the national defense and 'promoting the common welfare,' which does not mean 'providing welfare to the public.' Nothing's free in this world, it all has to come from somewhere, and people like me are sick of taking care of individuals on welfare, WIC, HUD, Medicaid, and seeing them with their cell phones, video cameras, and brand new vehicles with keyless ignition, then going out and getting in our POS and driving home to our small apartments that we pay the entire bill for ourselves. You are not owed anything by mere providence of being inside this countries borders, not by me, not by the next guy. If you want a helping hand through difficult times, it can be found; but you guys want a freebie for life.
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
It's really too bad that he doesn't have a lot of money to sue these people into the ground. If he was a corp, he could sue both of them an win, but he's not.
One person's spending makes the next person's paycheque. The "it's already been taxed" argument is true, but irrelevant, because someone else was taxed on it. Likewise the property; just because Aunt Betty paid tax, doesn't exempt you.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What if you were already working for another ISP? Would they simply have fired him for that? Sounds to me like a situation a land shark would love to get involved in for free. Make sure that in the future, neither of you ever sign any NCA. If they fire him for that he has a case. If they fire him for who you work for, he has a bigger case. If they sue you for working for a competitor, you have an even bigger case since you aren't even a party to the agreement at all.
I wish you could name the company.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I don't know what you were thinking, but the opposite of anarchy is not civilization. The opposite of anarchy is monarchy or dictatorship. There was a tremendous anarchist movement during the 30's in Spain, which looks to have been an exceedingly civilized affair.
I do not have a signature
Hey, I'm currently doing contracting work which has turned out to be hellish for completely different reasons. BUT, during my unemployment I learned of a company and job that was exactly what I wanted to do. I applied for it and never heard anything.
Then I got a call from some contracting company for that very position, so i sent along my stuff. Never heard back.
Then I got a call from a *different* contracting company. They not only got more info from me but gave me a screening interview. While there, it was obvious that the job was as good as I'd hoped. We were shaking hands and I was ready to make the date to inteview with the company when, somehow or another through a line of questioning I mentioned the other contracting company (who didn't do squat for me as far as getting the position).
They immediately became annoyed with me, saying "Why didn't you tell us" etc. etc. The whole thing ended then and there on the spot, and I drove home in a daze wondering what the hell I did wrong. I hadn't signed a contract or anything with either company, but I somehow breeched some kind of untold agreement. Now my chances for employment with said company are gone, and I'm sitting in a dead-end contracting position, bitter and annoyed.
Anyone familiar with this concept, whatever it may be, that I committed some kind of breech?? Seems a little sleezy to me.
There are loopholes in the tax law that let someone who can afford an army of lawyers get around it. This tax encourages large corporations and trust funds while punishing the little guy.
I have had friends who lost their family bussinesses or farms because of the "death tax." These are ordinary middle class people who owned buildings or land that happened to be appraised at a value that outweighs what they can realistically make off it.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
> Where I live it's two houses. You, by your own > voluntary choice, want a house in an area where > houses are expensive, whose fault is that? When my dad bought his house he paid less then $30,000 for it. Land values have gone up faster then income. If he leaves me the house, I won't be able to afford the $1,000,000 tax on it. I'll have to sell it. Somehow the land costing more is my fault?
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
No, an internist (not an intern, internal medicine as opposed to external medicine (which he actually does too)). My point is that we don't get even prescription medicine in our health care system. From what I understand, you get more medicine than doctor, and I don't even get medicine.
Studies have shown that as their cow consumption increases, their life expectancy drops.
As for Japan's style health care, much of their benefits came from the fact that they had a huge economy for such a long period (fed off the developement of the rest of asia) Without that money, they could never have afforded the massive preventative care that led to their current good health.
As their economy has topped (other asian countries insisting on their fare share of modernization profits), they have begun to discover the true cost of their health care, cutting down on certain things. Hopefully they will not reduce preventative care, and thereby maintain their general good health.
Also, a large portion of the US's healthcare profits have been re-invested into research, and that research has been succesfull.
If they are so succesfull, then why hasn't the US benefited from their success???
Because for various reasons, the US and other Developed Countries have agreed NOT to charge the poor countries full price. It is in fact a massive charity. Example: If the US and European countries set a flat price for their AID's Drugs and received payment for everyone that is currently taking them, instead of allowing the poorer countries to make them for free, the average price for them could be more than cut in 1/2.
But the poor people of the world, who are the main ones using those drugs now, are not paying the developed countries for those drugs.
While this is just one example, there are enough other similar issues to support the belief that one of the reasons the US's healthcare system is both the most expensive and has the best care available if you can pay for it, is that our Health care system is indirectly subsidizing other countries.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I don't know where you got the idea that the IEEE lied about the tech worker shortage. In fact they activly lobied against the H1B's claiming that there were plenty of older EE's that could be cheaply retrained.
IEEE-USA and other organizations representing engineers, computer
scientists and health care providers opposed enactment of the new law on
the grounds that IT worker shortage claims were overstated and because of
concerns about the limited applicability of the worker safeguards.
The Japanese diet contains quite a lot of meat, and what passes as low-salt in Japan would be considered a health risk in the United States. The amount of salt in the Japanese diet is astronomical. Meat consumption is also far higher than you might think. Walk into any Japanese supermarket and compare the amount of meat on the shelves to the amount of fish. Ones with a lot of fish will have it divided about 50/50. In most, there's more meat than fish. Junk food is also very widely consumed, and many office workers eat at least one meal a day of prepared food from a convenience store, which is high in fat, salt, and probably MSG. McDonald's and various Japanese fast food chains are dishing up hamburgers as fast as they can be made, as well as the equally unhealthy gyuudon (a bowl of rice with beef on top, lots of fat and salt). Junk food - candy, chips, etc., - is also widely consumed.
The Japanese diet may not be as unhealthy as the North American one, but it's a lot closer than most people outside of Japan think. That healthy diet is half-mythical. It's almost like it's part of Japan's managed external image, which is quite effective at concealing a lot of ugly truths about Japanese society.
Also, a large portion of the US's healthcare profits have been re-invested into research, and that research has been succesfull.
Japanese pharmaceutical companies spend a lot on research, too.
Because for various reasons, the US and other Developed Countries have agreed NOT to charge the poor countries full price.
That's because those poor countries were going to go ahead and make it themselves, anyway. Small profit beats no profit. The big pharmaceuticals are hardly doing that out of the goodness of their hearts.
The main thing that makes the US health care system so expensive is most certainly not any subsidy to other countries. The only thing that can raise the cost of is medicine. It doesn't make running a hospital more expensive. It doesn't make running a doctor's office more expensive. What does, then? Low hospital occupancy makes it hard to cover room costs, which can drive up room prices to compensate. Out of control malpractice suits make malpractice insurance so expensive that doctors have to charge a lot more. The very high cost of medical school. The ridiculous price of green fees and good golf clubs :-)
And plain old greed.
The final factor, though, remains the health insurance question. If everyone had it, health care wouldn't be unreasonably expensive in most cases. Universal coverage is the answer.Please note that having universal coverage does not mean getting rid of private insurance. Japan has private health insurance companies providing national health insurance, and they generally do it cheaper than the government corporation does. There's no reason why the US couldn't implement a standard national health insurance program, with a standard pricing scheme and no paperwork, but with the actual insurance provided exclusively by private carriers who meet the standards of the plan.
Mostly fish and not meat? Ah, I see you've bought into that myth, too. Please see my other post for more on that topic.
I won't be able to afford the $1,000,000 tax on it. I'll have to sell it. Somehow the land costing more is my fault?
No, the land costing more isn't your fault. The question is, what you choose to do with a windfall. If you sell it, assuming a 33% tax rate, you'll have the remaining $2 million in your pocket after taxes, that's not too shabby.
But I don't WANT to sell it. I want to keep it. But I don't have that choice because we have to "tax the rich".
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
But I don't WANT to sell it.
Life's a bitch. I feel your pain. On the other hand, it's the pain of someone who (in this example) has not been able to keep a $3 million property, but had to sell it and only gets to pocket an after-tax $2 million.
Get in line. I'll be sympathetic, but your turn will come after all those other people who don't ever get to pocket $2 million.
Even without this companies are moving more and more jobs overseas. Raise the cost of doing business here anymore and unemployment will only go up. Therefore raising the cost of doing business here once again. How do you propose this be done in a way that will not cause the system to implode?
Sometimes my girlfriend signs my credit card receipts. She just draws a scribble that looks a little like my signature, (which she can't even read since it's in russian!). Never got any calls from the bank. So I don't think they actually check those signatures.
"raising the general standard of living" could certainly be the result of an increased "social safety net". At the simplest, if you take some money from the richest and give it to the poorest, the average family income would be increased.
This does not mean that such a system is necessarily a good thing based purely on the overall ecconomic benchmarks, but it certainly is welcomed by the recipients.
One must always remember however that the pure ecconomic theories of perfect markets, rational buyers and sellers, and perfect information and the like are almost never in place in the real world. "Socialized" systems like unemployment insurance, minimum wages, working conditions, health and safety, enviornmental legislation, socialized health care, welfare, social security, etc. certainly have an effect on the ecconomy, but their actual impact can and is debated by well informed, intelligent learned individuals.
For some of these types of programs, beyond immediate ecconomic impact, the effect of longer term stability can have great positive national benifit. For example, the rise of the "middle class" over the past 100 years in the USA has generally been seen as a positive thing ecconomically, yet that growth was largely fueled by things that are generally viewed as "bad for the ecconomy" (labour laws, unions, etc.)
It is kind of sad however when we always seem to cast everything in terms of ecconomics. As nations in the "western world" we have levels of productivity unheard of even fifty years ago. By any measure, we are as nations more wealthy than ever. When will we be able to afford to minimally feed, house, educate and provide medical service to all of the members of our society?
This is easy to assume, but actual data shows otherwise. As a near perfect example, one can compare Sweden and the US during the 90's and the US to other countries during the 80's. I would recommend reading: this article for illustration. It's obviously from a free market source, but the numbers are clear.
In general, taking from the rich and giving to the poor can only raise the standard of living if all other things remain constant, and only in the short term. Simply because the rich often produce that which raises the standard of living most dramatically.
As a simple example, still taken from this article's research would be the percentage of poor households in the early 1980's that were lacking an indoor flushing toilet, and a fixed shower or bath. 1.8% U.S. poor households were without flushing toilets, 2.7% of poor US households were withing fixed showers or baths. Even the United Kingdom (certainly more liberal, but not by an "unreasonable" amount some would say) has 6% of it's poor without flushing toilets and 4% lacking bathing facilities. The article demonstates a great number more.
The article sites all of it's sources, but just to make sure, my quick bit of data is taken from: Rector, Robert. "How 'Poor' Are America's Poor?" in Julian Simon ed. "The State of Humanity" (Cambridge Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 1995), p. 240-56. Table 24.1
I agree with the conclusion of the article that "we can charitably conclude that it isn't altogether clear that increasing inequality has brought with it pronounced deleterious consequences", however I would not go so far as to support the completely opposite thesis.
Even if we grant the idea that the most "efficient" economies would be the result of the elimination of all "social safety net" types of services, I think that there are strong arguments for maintining or in some cases expanding them. How much growth is "enough"? When can we try to "share the wealth"? It is much too easy to goo too far in one direction or the other in my opinion.