old salt wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 10:18 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 6:19 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 1:33 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 1:25 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 1:22 pm
The education & experience gained is part of the deal in return for giving up rights, freedom of movement, lower compensation & risk incurred.
That's right! Which is why it's OBVIOUS you're wasting our time gaslighting that you think noncompetes are a good thing.
You've spent the last few months looking to pick fights, instead of having simple cordial conversations.
I wish you'd stop. You've morphed into a character who thinks that agreeing on ANYTHING is bad.
...you just can't stand your rants being challenged. The court found against Khan on a specific narrow case, which you ridiculously try to universally apply to all things, ...as is your normal childish "logic". How 'bout you stop that.
There isn't a poster here who doesn't know that you bothered even reading the ruling. I did.
You don't care about the case, yet are pretending to cheer it on because you're still mad at your DEI hire.
You CLEARLY don't believe in non competes. And are now here telling us "oh, it's a narrow ruling"....claiming to not care that some American workers get F'ed by noncompetes.
You're lying. And wasting your time, trying to throw stones at Dems, instead of discussing the underlying principle.
And again, you agree with me about the underlying principle, and are fibbing for effect. Trolling.
You're the one who didn't read the ruling. It doesn't give carte blanche for all employers to require non-competes from all employees.
It just limits the FTC from disallowing virtually all non-competes.
“The Commission’s lack of evidence as to why they chose to impose such a sweeping prohibition—that prohibits entering or enforcing virtually all non-competes—instead of targeting specific, harmful non-competes, renders the Rule arbitrary and capricious,” Brown said.
Oh, I read it. Plainly you don't understand what these words mean. It means that SOME non competes are allowed in America.
And you have already agreed with me hat non competes are unfair to workers. Because OF COURSE they are. So....what the F are you arguing about here?
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 10:18 pm
Your example of non-competes for military personnel is absurd. When you enter military service, you do so under a contract. There is no guarantee you will be offered another contract. You do not have to guarantee that you will serve beyond your contracted service.
That's right. The part you don't understand is: If noncompetes are legal, if I'm the US taxpayer and I believe that they were fair in the private sector? I would 100% use them on the military. Why? Because they incentivize military employees to stay on for longer.
But I don't believe in them, and neither do you, so the ONLY discussion point is back to the TrumpJudge, once again, sticking it to working class Americans to the benefit of the ownership class. It doesn't matter if noncompetes are only allowed "sometimes". They're inherently unfair, making it so that workers cannot maximize their labor value in a free market.
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 10:18 pm
The airline, air freight & commercial aviation industries could not survive without military trained pilots & maintainers.
Right. They'd just stop flying. You're a TERRIBLE capitalist. You think the the .gov MUST intervene....and yet at the same time, lash out at me for being a socialist. Yet here you are, advocating for government trained workers to fill commercial positions. You're CHEERING this socialized aviation training. It's hilarious.
if the .gov didn't supply these aviation workers, the free market would step in. But yes, I PREFER to give these fat jobs to ex military. They've more than earned them. It's comical how many times you contradict yourself when it comes to the American economy. You are a card carrying socialist....which is perfectly fine. It's the denial that you are a socialist that is.....boring.