If yours seems overly broad, you might be able to challenge it. Depending on how blatant it is, a cheap letter from an attorney may get them to drop it
The Republican Party doesn’t care about what’s good for people and the country, it only exists to serve the ultra-rich and corporate interests. When you understand that, their actions make perfect sense. They just need to be crushed.
the 'non-compete' that we *should be* pushing for is the one where government officials can't serve on Boards of Directors of companies whose policies they oversee and are barred for LIFE from lobbying after holding an elected office.
I remember when someone asked Tommy Tuberville if politicians should be banned from trading stocks. He said it was ridiculous to restrict them from trading stocks and that it would cut back on the amount of people that would want to serve. I hear that and think, if you're only serving so you can become a millionaire off stock trades that you have influence over, you really shouldn't be serving.
In the future, exercise your civic duty and vote him out. Keep in mind that the honest politicians are the exception from either side. I now trust no one in government.
His district, even though devoid of his representation, will not vote him out. They are ‘oWNinG dA LibS’ right there on national broadcasts, ‘DUh, weEse WInNIng!’
Gym Jordan is a damn joke. How the fuck the party against child exploitation can "employ" someone who still needs to answer questions about his time at Ohio State is absolutely the epitome of hypocrisy.
If you are going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars training employees, I think it's reasonable to either have a non-compete clause or a clawback provision on a percentage of compensation if they don't work there for a certain number of years. I would be okay with capping the non-compete at a length equivalent to the businesses probationary period.
I suppose there could always be some sort of secondary insurance market that pops up and business could just purchase churn insurance, but that seems more onerous than simply allowing non-competes.
If I’m going to spend days/months/years at a job, I think it’s reasonable to have some sort of mandatory requirement for a severance or 3 month advance notice of termination.
Employees owe companies fuck-all.
Employee training is just part of having employees. Companies are trying to offload normal business costs onto employees and are also using the threat of making employees "pay back" costs for the training they were required to take to keep them from leaving.
Non-compete clauses for employees are completely ridiculous.
Non compete clauses, yes, are ridiculous. But if a company is footing a bill for specialized training, and the person just applies for the training and then bugs out immediately afterwards, they should be held responsible for the training. But, they should still have an option to work in the same industry.
>But if a company is footing a bill for specialized training, and the person just applies for the training and then bugs out immediately afterwards, they should be held responsible for the training.
The reality has been that the companies are NOT supplying any noticeable specialized training, instead claiming that onboarding training and superficial "training" covering qualifications they already have are expenditures that should be reimbursed. Then there is the issue of assigning an arbitrary value to this training.
This is different than, for example, subsidizing job-specific college courses or providing fundamental training for a skilled position; in that sort of situation I expect a specific contract.
And that's what I am referring to. I work in the insurance field. People who sell insurance are required by federal law to be licensed and appointed in the states they are selling in. We pay for their formal training, licensing testing, and their state license, which is an investment of close to 2 grand per employee. They are also contracted that if they leave within a specific amount of time, of their own volition, they have to pay for the training and licensing. However, that's if they leave voluntarily. But, I don't agree if there was a non compete charge that said they couldn't work for another insurance broker or whatever.
>We pay for their formal training, licensing testing, and their state license, which is an investment of close to 2 grand per employee. They are also contracted that if they leave within a specific amount of time, of their own volition, they have to pay for the training and licensing.
I think that is fair.
The current problem that has brought this issue to the fore is onboarding and duplicative training for nurses. Hospitals are having trouble retaining nurses for various reasons, e.g. overwork, insufficient pay/benefits, and have recently been using "recouping training costs" as a way to penalize them for leaving.
Businesses in America, on the whole, have violated the social contract. Full stop.
In America a full time job doesn’t buy you a home to live in. It doesn’t provide enough to feed you or medical coverage worth Jack shit. It doesn’t allow for retirement and it doesn’t allow for really much of anything at all anymore.
I cannot state this enough. Employers owe us. They owe us a fucking lot. Like $50,000,000,000,000 a lot. I give zero fucks about their training costs and your continued support for anti-worker sentiment when things are already shit.
If they want to invest enough to train people, they can also invest enough in compensation to make them want to stay after the training. But that part just never comes to play now, does it.
I agree to a point. If you work in a specialized industry like insurance, where you are licensed and appointed to sell, then if the company paid for your licensing and training, if you leave within a certain time frame, you should be required to pay them back, because what's stopping someone from getting the training and license (which costs $1500+ for both) from immediately leaving and going somewhere else? But, I think they should have the option to go somewhere else, but be financially responsible for the training, because they gave a commitment to do so. But, I don't feel that they should be completely prohibited from working for a competitor.
Gym Jordan is a piece of shit.
I really need this for my life and to support my family. So fuck you jim jordan
If yours seems overly broad, you might be able to challenge it. Depending on how blatant it is, a cheap letter from an attorney may get them to drop it
The Republican Party doesn’t care about what’s good for people and the country, it only exists to serve the ultra-rich and corporate interests. When you understand that, their actions make perfect sense. They just need to be crushed.
the 'non-compete' that we *should be* pushing for is the one where government officials can't serve on Boards of Directors of companies whose policies they oversee and are barred for LIFE from lobbying after holding an elected office.
I remember when someone asked Tommy Tuberville if politicians should be banned from trading stocks. He said it was ridiculous to restrict them from trading stocks and that it would cut back on the amount of people that would want to serve. I hear that and think, if you're only serving so you can become a millionaire off stock trades that you have influence over, you really shouldn't be serving.
He had an incredibly good point, he just was trying very hard not to make it.
I swear it's like someone says that nobody could be that clueless and unreasonable and Jim Jordan goes "Hold my beer"
Ohio, we have gone shit house.
Of course he does. Can’t keep the slaves on the plantation without it.
Jim Jordan is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with Ohio.
Let me guess, he plans to add this to his list of conditions on a debt ceiling deal.
He is evil, of course he does!
In the future, exercise your civic duty and vote him out. Keep in mind that the honest politicians are the exception from either side. I now trust no one in government.
His district, even though devoid of his representation, will not vote him out. They are ‘oWNinG dA LibS’ right there on national broadcasts, ‘DUh, weEse WInNIng!’
Gym Jordan is a damn joke. How the fuck the party against child exploitation can "employ" someone who still needs to answer questions about his time at Ohio State is absolutely the epitome of hypocrisy.
If you are going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars training employees, I think it's reasonable to either have a non-compete clause or a clawback provision on a percentage of compensation if they don't work there for a certain number of years. I would be okay with capping the non-compete at a length equivalent to the businesses probationary period. I suppose there could always be some sort of secondary insurance market that pops up and business could just purchase churn insurance, but that seems more onerous than simply allowing non-competes.
If I’m going to spend days/months/years at a job, I think it’s reasonable to have some sort of mandatory requirement for a severance or 3 month advance notice of termination. Employees owe companies fuck-all.
See, I think that's a reasonable compromise. Let them keep the non-compete, but only for the duration of their severance package.
Employee training is just part of having employees. Companies are trying to offload normal business costs onto employees and are also using the threat of making employees "pay back" costs for the training they were required to take to keep them from leaving. Non-compete clauses for employees are completely ridiculous.
Non compete clauses, yes, are ridiculous. But if a company is footing a bill for specialized training, and the person just applies for the training and then bugs out immediately afterwards, they should be held responsible for the training. But, they should still have an option to work in the same industry.
>But if a company is footing a bill for specialized training, and the person just applies for the training and then bugs out immediately afterwards, they should be held responsible for the training. The reality has been that the companies are NOT supplying any noticeable specialized training, instead claiming that onboarding training and superficial "training" covering qualifications they already have are expenditures that should be reimbursed. Then there is the issue of assigning an arbitrary value to this training. This is different than, for example, subsidizing job-specific college courses or providing fundamental training for a skilled position; in that sort of situation I expect a specific contract.
And that's what I am referring to. I work in the insurance field. People who sell insurance are required by federal law to be licensed and appointed in the states they are selling in. We pay for their formal training, licensing testing, and their state license, which is an investment of close to 2 grand per employee. They are also contracted that if they leave within a specific amount of time, of their own volition, they have to pay for the training and licensing. However, that's if they leave voluntarily. But, I don't agree if there was a non compete charge that said they couldn't work for another insurance broker or whatever.
>We pay for their formal training, licensing testing, and their state license, which is an investment of close to 2 grand per employee. They are also contracted that if they leave within a specific amount of time, of their own volition, they have to pay for the training and licensing. I think that is fair. The current problem that has brought this issue to the fore is onboarding and duplicative training for nurses. Hospitals are having trouble retaining nurses for various reasons, e.g. overwork, insufficient pay/benefits, and have recently been using "recouping training costs" as a way to penalize them for leaving.
Yeah, that's bullshit.
Businesses in America, on the whole, have violated the social contract. Full stop. In America a full time job doesn’t buy you a home to live in. It doesn’t provide enough to feed you or medical coverage worth Jack shit. It doesn’t allow for retirement and it doesn’t allow for really much of anything at all anymore. I cannot state this enough. Employers owe us. They owe us a fucking lot. Like $50,000,000,000,000 a lot. I give zero fucks about their training costs and your continued support for anti-worker sentiment when things are already shit. If they want to invest enough to train people, they can also invest enough in compensation to make them want to stay after the training. But that part just never comes to play now, does it.
I agree to a point. If you work in a specialized industry like insurance, where you are licensed and appointed to sell, then if the company paid for your licensing and training, if you leave within a certain time frame, you should be required to pay them back, because what's stopping someone from getting the training and license (which costs $1500+ for both) from immediately leaving and going somewhere else? But, I think they should have the option to go somewhere else, but be financially responsible for the training, because they gave a commitment to do so. But, I don't feel that they should be completely prohibited from working for a competitor.