Very interesting. Thanks for the clear explanation.
It would seem that if the summery is correct about the contents of the non compete and the information I found about the different states is also correct, it might not even be enforceable on warehouse workers in Amazon's own home state of Washington.
Only if they pay strictly on piece meal or commission.
Every place I have worked with gave a 5% or better yearly raise each year you worked up to a ceiling limit on pay. Once you maxed out on pay, you lost the raises but were still making comfortable wages.
You want to take ten years off and then come back and earn the same as the man OR woman that didnt' leave? How is that fair?
Fairness has nothing to do with it. The person who was on the job and loyal to the company for 10 years is likely being overpaid for the job out of gratitude for his loyalty and dependable track record. It's why a rookie will often be hired in at a wage less than the 10 year veteran regardless of their sex. That is likely the value of the job, over that and it is a reward for "time served' and "continued value added" accumulated over that time span.
Hell, even at unionized factory jobs, pay is conditioned on seniority, Everyone starts off at a certain rate and gets small performance raises and typically annual raises regardless of their performance.
Suppose you put an application in with my company, and yes, warehouse workers are filling applications out and likely skipping the resume submission. I call your current employer (XYZ), say I'm sumdumass with "ZYX", I need employment verification for LDAPMAN.
whether your current employer says anything or not, your current employer knows my company which competes with them was thinking of hiring you so you are obviously intending to ignore the non compete agreement and leave for a job they banned you from taking via the non compete. They can call my company after you quit and I can tell them to stuff it, but they still know. They could be crafty and send a fedex package to you at your workplace and see if it is accepted or returned to find that you are actually working there. They can do a lot of things but the point is, they know you likely ignored the non compete and likely would be working at one of the places that called for employment history validation.
While I'm sure this is something to be considered, I'm not sure it is entirely possible. Some states will have restrictions on what can actually be covered by a non compete agreement. In Washington state for instance, a non compete is limited to customer information and contacts and something called good will (however that is defined) and limited to what is reasonably necessary.
This is kind of confusing as each state seems to be different to some respect. Some states also have a red line policy where if something is overly broad or not within the law, the entire agreement is tossed out while others will use a blue line approach and only strike out what is in conflict to make the NCA enforceable. Yet there is another process called reformation in which the courts would actually rework the Non-compete in order to make it enforceable (eg, striking out the entire state as overly broad and inserting a metropolitan area or radius of distance from the locations of the employer they determine to be reasonably enforceable)
I suspect they have no intention of ever enforcing this non compete. I think it is to scare the workers into not leaving for greener pastures, or better pay/benefits/work conditions.
It's not really the ex-employer keeping track that you have to worry about. Almost all prospective employers will call for a reference and then they know you are looking into a banned job. But the most troublesome for you would be friends and people you used to work with running into you on the street or something and you letting it slip that you are working somewhere specific. They then either out of amazement or stupidity, end up telling someone else at work and eventually it become common enough knowledge that the management hears about it.
It's happened to me before. I've wondered out loud about how some former coworker was doing and someone ends up telling me "just fine, they are working at XYZ now" not realizing they should have used a bit more discretion. Before I knew it, I was in the office being grilled by the boss and almost lost my job by telling them I was talking about someone from school not work when they heard the entire conversation. Thankfully, it turns out in my situation that the former employee already cleared the job with higher up management so the only one in any trouble was me. I soon found another job.
Is that your way of saying you have not been paying attention to the news over the last few years nor do you know how to use google?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ruling+bu... >Here, let me help you. Now if you scroll down a bit, you will find at least the bakery and the florist situation. There are a couple others that I know of, one in which a couple offered their farm home to members of their church for weddings because of the "view" and was forced to allow gays to wed there due to state law.
Confessions to a priest is confidential only because of religion. Certain religious beliefs declare a way to atonement and salvation through confessions. The priest is generally thought of as a conduit to their God(s). There is also spiritual guidance associated with it that can influence future behavior but ever since religion was in power, this came about and has been around since.
As for benefiting society- no more so or less than throwing out evidence and letting an obviously guilty person go free because the government failed to get a requirement of the warrant satisfied. You don't have to like it. Its just the way it is.
Lol.. bullshit. There are a lot of places in the bible referencing what we would call gays. There are at least seven references with at least one in the new testament.
As for a specific reference to serving gays, it is obvious that you are not supposed to enable or participate sin.
And don't worry, they are not using anything that belongs to you. Once it is taken from you, it is not yours any more. But even if you think you paid for it, you didn't, someone else did.
Oh, there isn't any dogma in what i said. The bottom line is the only reason minorities are a protected class is because the 14th amendment gave congress the power to make law for the purpose of equality in rights and privileges afforded to others. Gays simply are not listed within the law so they are not comparable to blacks in respect to discrimination in public accommodations. Right or wrong, it is not the same thing.
Nice theory but wrong. Or are you going to claim that the freedom of the press only applies to individuals and not businesses too? There certainly is no distinction within the first amendment. It says congress shall make no law, not none of these laws or except in this case.
Lol.. this has nothing to do with a one true faith. An established religion like Christianity or Islam has known values and ideas established long before anyone could be wanting to invent a religion in order to skirt law or regulation. That is why it is questionable to compare them.
As for protections, yup. I agree. But polygamy will likely be made legal because the argument for gay marriage has already been used for it and failed in the past. But if gay marriage is upheld as a right, there would be no reason other than the ones used against gay marriage to prohibit polygam. That being said, the comment was about having state law and courts deny established religious freedom and the necessity of a law like this.
I haven't even bothered looking for pure speech issues so i couldn't tell you of any.
I'm puzzled to why you ask about speech only. The first amendment protections cover religion also. Its not limited to just speech. I don't know if you knew that. Maybe you had something else in mind.
If you do not understand the constitution is the supreme law of the land, there likely is nothing i can do to help you other than suggest you stay in school. Maybe your mom can help you with that mumbo jumbo.
Lol.. somehow i do not consider refusing to participate in something the same as killing others in horrific ways.
Baking a cake is not participating in a wedding. However, baking a wedding cake would be because it furthers the act. If the wedding just wanted a white cake, there likely would not have been a problem. The bakery said they routinely otherwise served the couple.
I believe i just did tell them . But good job deflecting from the larger point which is inconvenient to the narrative of you have to serve every one in the ways they want else you're a bigoted pig who shouldn't be allowed to be in business.
What I said was pretty damn clear if you bothered to read past the sentence you quoted. Of course i did not say there are no black gays. Are you saying all gays are black?
Except the courts have already said driving is a privilege not a right so the government can be arbitrary on it.
Personally, i do not care if someone drinks and drives. They will end up killing themselves or likely still be safer than people texting or eating behind the wheel. But is it really practical to invent a religion and compare it to one that has been around longer than the government and had influenced the world for centuries before? It seems a little silly to me.
I really wish people would stop trying to compare gays to black people. They are not the same. First, the civil rights act is a law, not a constitutional provision. It is enabled due to the 14th amendment powers in section five in order to enforce section one of the same. Congress has chosen not to include gays within the class of protected persons. Second, congress uses the interstate commerce clause in order to apply the civil rights act to certain businesses large enough or operating across state lines. Finally, congress has declared that in order for the 14th amendment to be enforceable, an even smaller set of businesses not covered by the interstate commerce clause that provide public accommodations would have to comply to ensure the 14th amendment powers can be effective.
While you can certainly make the case that congress should include gays as a protected person (or class of people ), you also have to look at the 9th and 1st amendments which prohibits government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion and states that no right or privilege enumerated shall be used to deny rights or privileges held by the people. So in essence, a constitutional amendment would likely need to be made to square any conflicts that would prevent the free exercise of religion. Laws do not override the constitution.
So gays are not remotely the same as blacks legally or constitutionally when it comes to protections. And it varies from state to state as to if their civil rights legislation does include gays, but that would be a state rule which wouldn't override the constitution.
Actually, they were perfectly fine with baking them a cake. Just not a wedding cake. Their reasons where because their constitutionally protected free exercise of religion and beliefs of that religion prohibited them from participating in a gay wedding.
Here is the problem. We are letting a law override the constitution because you believe the law is better. So what would you think of a law that allows the government to censor what you type on the internet or that allows the government to search you any time they want without cause? I what would your reaction be if a law that said "all judges have to issue a warrant any time any government entity asks for one regardless of the reasons and if you are searched because of it, you cannot complain anywhere at all"?
Where is this in the constitution? I don't think you have even read it or understand what it is. Do they not teach government and civics in high school any more?
What if he sent his interns in regular clothing? If an ordinary person walked in asking for a cake with the words "kill a nig***for baby jesus" on it? What if someone placed an online order for posters that say "sex with kids is great, you should help legalize it so you can try it too- sponsored by your local NAMBLA charter 103"? Would you fill either of those orders?
Slashdot Mirror
Let us not forget about the issues with mailing lists either.
http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~d...
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/...
Very interesting. Thanks for the clear explanation.
It would seem that if the summery is correct about the contents of the non compete and the information I found about the different states is also correct, it might not even be enforceable on warehouse workers in Amazon's own home state of Washington.
Only if they pay strictly on piece meal or commission.
Every place I have worked with gave a 5% or better yearly raise each year you worked up to a ceiling limit on pay. Once you maxed out on pay, you lost the raises but were still making comfortable wages.
Fairness has nothing to do with it. The person who was on the job and loyal to the company for 10 years is likely being overpaid for the job out of gratitude for his loyalty and dependable track record. It's why a rookie will often be hired in at a wage less than the 10 year veteran regardless of their sex. That is likely the value of the job, over that and it is a reward for "time served' and "continued value added" accumulated over that time span.
Hell, even at unionized factory jobs, pay is conditioned on seniority, Everyone starts off at a certain rate and gets small performance raises and typically annual raises regardless of their performance.
I think you have it the other way around.
Suppose you put an application in with my company, and yes, warehouse workers are filling applications out and likely skipping the resume submission. I call your current employer
(XYZ), say I'm sumdumass with "ZYX", I need employment verification for LDAPMAN.
whether your current employer says anything or not, your current employer knows my company which competes with them was thinking of hiring you so you are obviously intending to ignore the non compete agreement and leave for a job they banned you from taking via the non compete. They can call my company after you quit and I can tell them to stuff it, but they still know. They could be crafty and send a fedex package to you at your workplace and see if it is accepted or returned to find that you are actually working there. They can do a lot of things but the point is, they know you likely ignored the non compete and likely would be working at one of the places that called for employment history validation.
While I'm sure this is something to be considered, I'm not sure it is entirely possible. Some states will have restrictions on what can actually be covered by a non compete agreement. In Washington state for instance, a non compete is limited to customer information and contacts and something called good will (however that is defined) and limited to what is reasonably necessary.
This is kind of confusing as each state seems to be different to some respect. Some states also have a red line policy where if something is overly broad or not within the law, the entire agreement is tossed out while others will use a blue line approach and only strike out what is in conflict to make the NCA enforceable. Yet there is another process called reformation in which the courts would actually rework the Non-compete in order to make it enforceable
(eg, striking out the entire state as overly broad and inserting a metropolitan area or radius of distance from the locations of the employer they determine to be reasonably enforceable)
Here is a little more about how it varies in different states
And of course, here is the PDF which charts it
http://www.beckreedriden.com/w...
I suspect they have no intention of ever enforcing this non compete. I think it is to scare the workers into not leaving for greener pastures, or better pay/benefits/work conditions.
It's not really the ex-employer keeping track that you have to worry about. Almost all prospective employers will call for a reference and then they know you are looking into a banned job. But the most troublesome for you would be friends and people you used to work with running into you on the street or something and you letting it slip that you are working somewhere specific. They then either out of amazement or stupidity, end up telling someone else at work and eventually it become common enough knowledge that the management hears about it.
It's happened to me before. I've wondered out loud about how some former coworker was doing and someone ends up telling me "just fine, they are working at XYZ now" not realizing they should have used a bit more discretion. Before I knew it, I was in the office being grilled by the boss and almost lost my job by telling them I was talking about someone from school not work when they heard the entire conversation. Thankfully, it turns out in my situation that the former employee already cleared the job with higher up management so the only one in any trouble was me. I soon found another job.
Is that your way of saying you have not been paying attention to the news over the last few years nor do you know how to use google?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ruling+bu... >Here, let me help you. Now if you scroll down a bit, you will find at least the bakery and the florist situation. There are a couple others that I know of, one in which a couple offered their farm home to members of their church for weddings because of the "view" and was forced to allow gays to wed there due to state law.
Seriously, google is your friend.
Confessions to a priest is confidential only because of religion. Certain religious beliefs declare a way to atonement and salvation through confessions. The priest is generally thought of as a conduit to their God(s). There is also spiritual guidance associated with it that can influence future behavior but ever since religion was in power, this came about and has been around since.
As for benefiting society- no more so or less than throwing out evidence and letting an obviously guilty person go free because the government failed to get a requirement of the warrant satisfied. You don't have to like it. Its just the way it is.
Then the state does it for them and attaches the bill to their tax liability. If they don't pay that, there is already a way to deal with it.
Lol.. bullshit. There are a lot of places in the bible referencing what we would call gays. There are at least seven references with at least one in the new testament.
As for a specific reference to serving gays, it is obvious that you are not supposed to enable or participate sin.
And don't worry, they are not using anything that belongs to you. Once it is taken from you, it is not yours any more. But even if you think you paid for it, you didn't, someone else did.
You sure? You just fooled me.
Oh, there isn't any dogma in what i said. The bottom line is the only reason minorities are a protected class is because the 14th amendment gave congress the power to make law for the purpose of equality in rights and privileges afforded to others. Gays simply are not listed within the law so they are not comparable to blacks in respect to discrimination in public accommodations. Right or wrong, it is not the same thing.
Nice theory but wrong. Or are you going to claim that the freedom of the press only applies to individuals and not businesses too? There certainly is no distinction within the first amendment. It says congress shall make no law, not none of these laws or except in this case.
Lol.. this has nothing to do with a one true faith. An established religion like Christianity or Islam has known values and ideas established long before anyone could be wanting to invent a religion in order to skirt law or regulation. That is why it is questionable to compare them.
As for protections, yup. I agree. But polygamy will likely be made legal because the argument for gay marriage has already been used for it and failed in the past. But if gay marriage is upheld as a right, there would be no reason other than the ones used against gay marriage to prohibit polygam. That being said, the comment was about having state law and courts deny established religious freedom and the necessity of a law like this.
I haven't even bothered looking for pure speech issues so i couldn't tell you of any.
I'm puzzled to why you ask about speech only. The first amendment protections cover religion also. Its not limited to just speech. I don't know if you knew that. Maybe you had something else in mind.
If you do not understand the constitution is the supreme law of the land, there likely is nothing i can do to help you other than suggest you stay in school. Maybe your mom can help you with that mumbo jumbo.
Lol.. somehow i do not consider refusing to participate in something the same as killing others in horrific ways.
Baking a cake is not participating in a wedding. However, baking a wedding cake would be because it furthers the act. If the wedding just wanted a white cake, there likely would not have been a problem. The bakery said they routinely otherwise served the couple.
I believe i just did tell them . But good job deflecting from the larger point which is inconvenient to the narrative of you have to serve every one in the ways they want else you're a bigoted pig who shouldn't be allowed to be in business.
What I said was pretty damn clear if you bothered to read past the sentence you quoted. Of course i did not say there are no black gays. Are you saying all gays are black?
See how silly that is?
Except the courts have already said driving is a privilege not a right so the government can be arbitrary on it.
Personally, i do not care if someone drinks and drives. They will end up killing themselves or likely still be safer than people texting or eating behind the wheel. But is it really practical to invent a religion and compare it to one that has been around longer than the government and had influenced the world for centuries before? It seems a little silly to me.
What death threats? The example i gave was a statement not a threat. Its no different of a threat as "hands up, don't shoot" is.
Also pedophilia is illegal, advocacy to legalize it is not. In fact, any law barring the political speech of advocacy on it would be unconstitutional.
Evidently, it is not as easy as you think. Nice attempt to skirt the issue though.
I really wish people would stop trying to compare gays to black people. They are not the same. First, the civil rights act is a law, not a constitutional provision. It is enabled due to the 14th amendment powers in section five in order to enforce section one of the same. Congress has chosen not to include gays within the class of protected persons. Second, congress uses the interstate commerce clause in order to apply the civil rights act to certain businesses large enough or operating across state lines. Finally, congress has declared that in order for the 14th amendment to be enforceable, an even smaller set of businesses not covered by the interstate commerce clause that provide public accommodations would have to comply to ensure the 14th amendment powers can be effective.
While you can certainly make the case that congress should include gays as a protected person (or class of people ), you also have to look at the 9th and 1st amendments which prohibits government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion and states that no right or privilege enumerated shall be used to deny rights or privileges held by the people. So in essence, a constitutional amendment would likely need to be made to square any conflicts that would prevent the free exercise of religion. Laws do not override the constitution.
So gays are not remotely the same as blacks legally or constitutionally when it comes to protections. And it varies from state to state as to if their civil rights legislation does include gays, but that would be a state rule which wouldn't override the constitution.
Actually, they were perfectly fine with baking them a cake. Just not a wedding cake. Their reasons where because their constitutionally protected free exercise of religion and beliefs of that religion prohibited them from participating in a gay wedding.
Here is the problem. We are letting a law override the constitution because you believe the law is better. So what would you think of a law that allows the government to censor what you type on the internet or that allows the government to search you any time they want without cause? I what would your reaction be if a law that said "all judges have to issue a warrant any time any government entity asks for one regardless of the reasons and if you are searched because of it, you cannot complain anywhere at all"?
Where is this in the constitution? I don't think you have even read it or understand what it is. Do they not teach government and civics in high school any more?
What if he sent his interns in regular clothing? If an ordinary person walked in asking for a cake with the words "kill a nig***for baby jesus" on it? What if someone placed an online order for posters that say "sex with kids is great, you should help legalize it so you can try it too- sponsored by your local NAMBLA charter 103"? Would you fill either of those orders?