zlacker

[return to "New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy"]
1. hulitu+p4[view] [source] 2023-11-18 08:58:39
>>pg_123+(OP)
> New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy

I though capitalism (Wall Street) was about competition. /s

◧◩
2. eru+J6[view] [source] 2023-11-18 09:17:43
>>hulitu+p4
It's about voluntary contracts, too.
◧◩◪
3. Paul-C+qe[view] [source] 2023-11-18 10:23:42
>>eru+J6
Agreements between parties of vastly unequal power and alternatives are not voluntary.
◧◩◪◨
4. cj+Wi[view] [source] 2023-11-18 11:02:35
>>Paul-C+qe
If they aren't voluntarily, they wouldn't be enforceable in court.

What you're trying to say is there's limited alternatives. (The most obvious alternative is to not take the job)

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. Paul-C+dj[view] [source] 2023-11-18 11:05:04
>>cj+Wi
No. What I'm saying is "take a job with a non-compete or starve" is not a situation in which a worker can make a voluntary choice, "enforceable in court" be damned. Not to mention, such agreements are often not stated up front as part of the job description.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. cj+ok[view] [source] 2023-11-18 11:15:01
>>Paul-C+dj
I hear what you’re saying, but it’s hyperbole. I think there’s zero percent of you starving over your unwillingness to sign a non-compete.

Pretending like the situation is that extreme isn’t helping anyone.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. Paul-C+sl[view] [source] 2023-11-18 11:22:47
>>cj+ok
Why should I believe you? You don't offer an argument. It is entirely plausible that one could be faced with a situation of losing one's home, health insurance, ability to exist in modern life, and, oh, one's actual life due to unemployment. I know this because it happens. Non-competes, by definition, make this problem worse by reducing the number of jobs available to a person. What's your justification?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. cj+Nq[view] [source] 2023-11-18 12:01:57
>>Paul-C+sl
I’m not going to debate or justify non-competes. I’m also not advocating for them.

All I’m doing is calling you out that when you join a company, you’re voluntarily signing all of the contracts. It’s not some kind of involuntary act of slavery. A responsible adult is presented a contract and chooses to sign it. That’s the opposite of involuntary.

Your argument is it’s involuntary.

That’s what we were debating. I wasn’t debating the contents of the contract. I personally don’t see a major need for non-competes and is overkill in almost all cases.

I’m simply tired of the “I’m a victim!” mindset of blaming others for their own actions. It’s your fault if you signed a shitty employment contract. Next time read the fine print, or don’t sign it.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. lordna+Jx[view] [source] 2023-11-18 12:50:13
>>cj+Nq
I think the issue here is what voluntary means.

It's not black or white. You don't have to be held at gunpoint for something to be involuntary, and nobody is ever so free of concerns that everything they do is entirely voluntary.

[go to top]