Reply With Quote
or pressure by the party for them to stay in and continue trying to dilute the vote to prevent a majority.... you think klobuchar is still in at this point for any other reason than to win minnesota?
Non-competes should be banned for employees making below a certain amount. You shouldn’t be able to impose a non-compete on someone with no experience who’s making 5 figures in annual salary.
or pressure by the party for them to stay in and continue trying to dilute the vote to prevent a majority.... you think klobuchar is still in at this point for any other reason than to win minnesota?
The part with mandatory stock gifts to employees is re ed though but the chances of that ever making it through Congress is less than zero.
mandatory arbitration is also bull for non exempt employees, imo
Biden on the verge of taking over this race I heard (on MSNBC so it's true)
one can only imagine how much south carolina results are going to be played up
Would be great if that's what the ole comrade was proposing. But it ain't.
I get that some of his platform is to start a conversation. But what's the point of this ? There's no conversation about the merits of banning arbitration clauses. And there's 0 chance it would ever survive any legal challenge. So what's the point? To show how ing stupid Bernie is?
Even if he were to wipe out non-competes completely it wouldn’t bother me assuming non-solicits are still legal. There’s already a fair amount of states where non-competes are unenforceable (as you know Texas was one until very recently and somehow the business community managed to not fall apart) and they do just fine.
Yeah that’s another one where I’m not overly concerned with helping employers preserve their ability to force employees into arbitration exempt or non-exempt. If I’m making a list of things that make America a great country giving employers’ the ability to play fast and loose with employment laws and treat their employees like because the worst case scenario is a confidential arbitration hearing with an employer-friendly arbitrator isn’t on the list.
Huh? I don't think Texas ever outright banned non-compe ion agreements, but I know that the Weatherford case from the 60's held that they were enforceable so long as their restrictions were reasonable. It's true that historically they were not favored (they're still not), but the trend has been to relax restrictions on them. So I don't know what you mean by Texas only recently allowing non-compe ion agreements.
I think you're concerned about the insurance salesman who wants to go out on his own after working at another's agency. That's fine. But every day, I see suits filed by employers against their former employees who've taken the companies IP and ran. At least some of those suits are legitimate. And they'd be swept up too.
Do you have problems with mandatory arbitration clauses in the AIA form contract? Or a JOA?
Didn’t the TCPA effectively make non-competes unenforceable before its amendment? I could be mistaken but lawyers I know said it did.
Maybe we’re just talking past each other, but the employee who takes his companies’ IP and runs is in breach of a lot more other than just a non-compete (ie misappropriation of trade secrets), so there’d be legal recourse by the employer even if the non-compete went away. The term non-compete imo means an employee is forbidden from doing anything that would compete with his old company even if he’s not stealing any trade secrets along the way.
Not at all. There was a circuit split between the Dallas and Houston court's of appeal on whether the TCPA even applied to a non-compete. And the recent statutory amendments explicitly exempt non-competes. You have it backwards.
You're 100% right, but in a lot of instances it's hard and expensive to show there's been a violation of a confidentiality agreement, assuming one exists. These days, you need a forensic analysis of the employees computer/phone/etc... to really get your foot in the door. The Texas trade secret act has a fee-shifting provision that disincentives people from filing suit.
My one experience with arbitration was an arbitrator who allowed for the same amount of discovery and depositions as a normal court hearing would and also freely gave out extensions the way a district court does, point being it wasn’t any more efficient or speedy than an ordinary trial would be, only difference is the parties paid a ton in arbitration fees. Maybe that’s a jaded view but what I’m saying is I don’t see the advantage of arbitration at all in any scenario.
I ing hate arbitration for many of the same reasons. But I fail to see why that's sufficient reason to ban it. There's a lot of utility to some parties who like the confidentiality of proceedings, to an arbitrator vs. 12 jurors, etc...
Didn’t have it backwards as I knew the amendment expressly exempted non-competes and I thought it did so because of how easy it was for former employees to use the TCPA to get out of a noncompete suit before the amendment. Maybe not though.
Its also just ny opinion but if you sue a former employee for trade secret misappropriation and don’t prevail, I think paying the former employees fees is a pretty equitable result. If you don’t want to risk having to pay his fees then the IP he allegedly stole isn’t worth that much to you.
they will run out of money
they will have no choice
Totally fair, and reasonable minds can differ on this. But that's the point - banning non-compe ion agreements is ridiculous in its harshness.
Well to be clear I didn’t say it should go to a jury instead, is Sanders also saying he’d ban jury trial waiver provisions too or is it just arbitration? If so then I vehemently disagree, juries are ing re s
Regarding confidentiality, if both parties want it then by all means agree to arbitration. Doesn’t seem like Bernie is saying do away with arbitration completely, just saying he’d ban binding arbitration provisions.
His website doesn't say anything about jury waivers, but banning arbitration clauses accomplishes the same thing.Well to be clear I didn’t say it should go to a jury instead, is Sanders also saying he’d ban jury trial waiver provisions too or is it just arbitration? If so then I vehemently disagree, juries are ing re s
Maybe I'm being too much of a stickler and the section discussing these platform items does discuss them vis-a-vis employees, but none of the platform items say that they are limited to employment contracts alone. There are also mentions of suppliers and executives in the section, so I'm assuming the worst here.
We're getting too far in the weeds. My point is, regardless of your thoughts on David Brooks, his article is at least somewhat substantiated by words straight outta Bernie's mouth
Not really, you’d just have a non-jury trial the judge decides on...
I also just don’t see what’s wrong with giving employees a ROFR on a business they work for being bought. If they can match an offer and provide the same economics, what’s the harm?
Is there a substantive difference between having a bench trial vs. an arbitration?
Because it deprives the seller of its choice in who it can contract with?
There's nothing preventing employees from putting their money together and buying a business now.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
