They have to be narrow to even be enforced but for the most part they are to protect the business from the investment they put into you. I don't think they should be used to keep an employee down but I do see a use for them in certain scenarios. Getting rid of them all together is not all great. imo
No, I do not think they should be in fear. No, I do not agree I get to kill someone for chanting "death to IP" outside my home. No, I would not feel differently. There would need to be a more tangible or imminent threat.
more areas where you and I are on opposite ends. I would take that as a threat and do whatever was necessary to make sure my kids in the house are protected. They’d have plenty of opportunity to stop and exit the area before drastic measures but there comes a point, and I’m not really a beta male who would just take intimidation, disrespect and threats.
You're looking at this from only one pair of shoes. What if I find you intimidating and threatening? I can just kill you? Based on my emotional response to you?
what did I do to threaten? You can do whatever you want, but if I wasn’t harassing you or on your property or whatever, you are going to jail. If you are chanting death to ssmiff family at me, I like my chances in court.
They definitely have been abused by some companies which sucks. It's one of those things that the courts need to make judgement calls on when decided to enforce them or not.
Put a value on it. Non-compete = x% of last pay rate for the period of the non-compete. Then the length of the non-compete is bound to become more reasonable.
Most already do so that it can be enforced. It's the assholes that make it as vague as possible so they then can scare the employee by threatening a lawsuit that they (the company ) would probably lose but most people don't have the knowledge or money to fight back. I think one thing that should be done is a major penalty to any company that loses a non compete case in court and maybe some type of free defense for employees trying to fight the non compete.
I’ve always had to deal with noncompetes on both sides. I’ve never tried to hold anybody to one and I signed ones because there are ways around it. One of the times I agree with noncompetes for example is when a company spends a lot of time and money training, supporting etc then a competitor comes along and pulls them over with a new Frontier. I don’t think that’s right, assuming everything was going as discussed and planned with company A. May as well let the person go anyway I suppose if they will bolt that quickly to compete against you, they probably don’t have the character you want. I never understood firing someone and trying to hold them to one. Why would you care if an employee not good enough to work for you goes to work for the competition.
Oh I was just saying [uck fay] Morgan Wallen. Throwing chairs at people should probably always land you in some kind of trouble Unless you are like, the reincarnation of Bobby Knight. Then it’s cool
It's easier to just type "idealistic dumbasses with no real world experience try to figure out the world and look stupid while doing it"
Who the hell has "real world experience" on this subject, though, other than a few select people? Just because one is 40 and has a career with a family doesn't make them any kind of expert on living in Gaza or Tel Aviv. They aren't necessarily wrong, but certainly overzealous in their attitudes and fail to see some of the gray in the conflict. Plus, they have the youthful energy (and time without much to lose, unlike most adults) able to be directed towards their ideals with all of their inherent excesses. Like most folks, they often fail to see the flaws in their arguments and support. The "from the river to the sea" shit and the like, most notably. They aren't wrong, though, in the fact Israel commits heinous acts and establishes human rights violations as policy, especially with their settlers in the West Bank and open-air prisons of Gaza. They can just be sanctimonious assholes in doing so, not an uncommon problem.
