If you know how to do it that much cheaper than what we're already paying, what are you doing posting SlashDot? Pitch your idea around, create a startup, start building the network, and the customers will flock to you! What is stopping you?
I also agree to work 8 hours a day (or more). Does that infringe upon my freedoms? I agree to write code in VB and not in C++, they way I want to? Does that infringe upon my freedom too? I agree to work in Redmond, and not downtown Seattle? Is that an infringement on my freedom?
Oh please, enough with playing the victim. Nobody's forcing you to sign an non-compete agreement. You do it of your own volition. It is not slavery, no matter how much you spin it.
I may not be the center of the universe, but I certainly don't want others telling me what I should and shouldn't be doing with my own life.
While I enjoy the fun that is semantics, when I hear things like these, my stomach starts to turn.
Maybe I need to check my principles at the door; that would make it much easier to conced that voluntary agreeing to something (in return for something else, mind you) infringes upon my freedom.
Your belief is fine, as long as you apply it to yourself, i.e. don't sign such contracts. But who are you to tell me that I shouldn't be able to? What if Microsoft is preparing to pay me $25K a year extra if I agree to the 'non-compete for 5 years' clause? Why shouldn't I be able to enter such an agreement with them?
To me, it's not about what's desirable, it's about what's right. On a personal level I may not agree with the no-compete clause, but that doesn't mean that I want to force employers to never have that provision in the contract. It's like the common argument of the pro-choice advocates: "I may not agree with abortion personally, but I am against outlawing it"
Then no state does, nor country. It's pretty much consistent across the board - law trumps contracts.
Absolutely, but to a different extent. For instance, rent control is a staple in big liberal urban centers, but almost non-existant everywhere else. So it's not just a matter of "evil liberals"; it's a matter of the degree of the government intrusion into my life. I guess I can live with some (though I don't like it), but some states simply abuse the privilege.
The point is that just because you support those laws (the ones limiting my right to contract) does not make you any more compassionate or me any colder.
Tell me, do these laws ever have the desired effect or are they just made to make people like you charitable?
All these laws that are supposedly designed to alleviate the plight of the poor artificially increase the rent that hits hard those very people you're trying to protect. You might as well have added rent control to the list - a similar law that's supposed to help the poor, but in actuality is reducing the availability of apartments.
But, if it makes you feel any better, suppose I am cold and emotionless. Does that mean you have the right to tell me how to lead my life?
Like I mentioned before, I am not saying that what California is doing is illegal. My position is that there is a natural right to contract, and while courts should be free to intereprete the clauses in the contracts (especially if they're broad), the state shouldn't come out and say - hey, you can't agree to this, even if the two of you really really want it.
The state decides what is illegal and what isn't and then says - "hey, well you can't agree to that, we decided that it's illegal". I mean, look at some of your examples: bedrooms without windows are illegal? requiring a cleaning deposit is illegal?
You're going to tell me that the state has some vested interest in deciding these things for me?
And let's not get overdramatic. A non-compete clause is not signing yourself over to slavery. It's a pretty reasonable thing to do for an employer.
Contract Law 101: A contract provision that violates public policy is invalid and unenforcable.
I am not saying that the suit is meritless (I don't know the details of the case). All I'm saying is that the state should not tell me what is and what isn't a valid contract. I know that it does, but it shouldn't.
That is a completeley ridiculous argument. While you MAY sign such a contract, you DO NOT have ownership rights over your children. You DO have ownership rights over your life.
A story like this would not have made a headline on Slashdot if it didn't involve Google.
Really, there is nothing controversial about this. You sign a contract, you're expected to abide by it. It's unfortunate that the state of California doesn't think much of the right to contract.
From the summary: While no accidents were reported to have been caused by the software glitch...
From the actual article: The report said no injuries or fatalities have been linked to the problem, but it did not say whether there had been accidents due to the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
If you know how to do it that much cheaper than what we're already paying, what are you doing posting SlashDot? Pitch your idea around, create a startup, start building the network, and the customers will flock to you! What is stopping you?
I also agree to work 8 hours a day (or more). Does that infringe upon my freedoms? I agree to write code in VB and not in C++, they way I want to? Does that infringe upon my freedom too? I agree to work in Redmond, and not downtown Seattle? Is that an infringement on my freedom?
I may not be the center of the universe, but I certainly don't want others telling me what I should and shouldn't be doing with my own life.
Maybe I need to check my principles at the door; that would make it much easier to conced that voluntary agreeing to something (in return for something else, mind you) infringes upon my freedom.
And I have to support that?
Also, your freedom is limited by the freedoms of others,
Absolutely. Yet, in this instance, nobody's freedoms are infringed upon.
Your belief is fine, as long as you apply it to yourself, i.e. don't sign such contracts. But who are you to tell me that I shouldn't be able to? What if Microsoft is preparing to pay me $25K a year extra if I agree to the 'non-compete for 5 years' clause? Why shouldn't I be able to enter such an agreement with them?
To me, it's not about what's desirable, it's about what's right. On a personal level I may not agree with the no-compete clause, but that doesn't mean that I want to force employers to never have that provision in the contract. It's like the common argument of the pro-choice advocates: "I may not agree with abortion personally, but I am against outlawing it"
Absolutely, but to a different extent. For instance, rent control is a staple in big liberal urban centers, but almost non-existant everywhere else. So it's not just a matter of "evil liberals"; it's a matter of the degree of the government intrusion into my life. I guess I can live with some (though I don't like it), but some states simply abuse the privilege.
So you got the state to support your line of reasoning; you still want to be able to renege on something you agreed to.
A non-compete agreement is not a law, it's something to which you AGREE to. I suppose it's too much to ask to be responsible for what you sign on to.
The point is that just because you support those laws (the ones limiting my right to contract) does not make you any more compassionate or me any colder.
I seem to recall that enumerated somewhere in the Constitution. Can you help me out and point which article it's under?
All these laws that are supposedly designed to alleviate the plight of the poor artificially increase the rent that hits hard those very people you're trying to protect. You might as well have added rent control to the list - a similar law that's supposed to help the poor, but in actuality is reducing the availability of apartments.
But, if it makes you feel any better, suppose I am cold and emotionless. Does that mean you have the right to tell me how to lead my life?
Funny, and here I thought the purpose of the government was to defend my liberties. Yeah, I must listening to Limbaugh too much, that's it.
Like I mentioned before, I am not saying that what California is doing is illegal. My position is that there is a natural right to contract, and while courts should be free to intereprete the clauses in the contracts (especially if they're broad), the state shouldn't come out and say - hey, you can't agree to this, even if the two of you really really want it.
If there's no contract, there's no claim. If there's a contract, then employment is defined by it, and not by your definition.
You're going to tell me that the state has some vested interest in deciding these things for me?
And let's not get overdramatic. A non-compete clause is not signing yourself over to slavery. It's a pretty reasonable thing to do for an employer.
I am not saying that the suit is meritless (I don't know the details of the case). All I'm saying is that the state should not tell me what is and what isn't a valid contract. I know that it does, but it shouldn't.
And that's exactly my point - the State of California does not honor the right to contract.
That is a completeley ridiculous argument. While you MAY sign such a contract, you DO NOT have ownership rights over your children. You DO have ownership rights over your life.
A story like this would not have made a headline on Slashdot if it didn't involve Google.
Really, there is nothing controversial about this. You sign a contract, you're expected to abide by it. It's unfortunate that the state of California doesn't think much of the right to contract.
Thanks for Suggesting that.
I use it for the bookmarks (and have been using it for a couple of months now - dunno why it took so long to post this "story").
Incidentally, this plugin has been available for well over a year as well.
Nice try, but Jefferson was talking about banks specifically, and not about corporations in general.
From the actual article: The report said no injuries or fatalities have been linked to the problem, but it did not say whether there had been accidents due to the problem.
Close enough for government work, eh?