3 ms·

> Despite this, almost all the company that I worked for in France had non-applicable non-competes agreement in their contract. Legal intimidation. There shoul

> Despite this, almost all the company that I worked for in France had non-applicable non-competes agreement in their contract. Legal intimidation. There should be a law against this, like "If a company is notified that part of the contract they wrote is illegal, and they keep knowingly pushing the illegal version, they get fined. And they have to send updated versions with the illegal clauses stricken to everyone that signed the old version."

antihero 5y ago
Nope, prison sentences for lawyers/HR. This is the only thing people give a shit about. When I was working in finance nobody gave a shit about fines, the only thing people gave a shit about was the prison sentences potentially handed to people for fucking up AML. You can't ask an employee to do something that could put them in prison, but you can absolutely ask an employee to do something that risks the company to be fined.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  Punishments for lawyers, sure, but I think for HR is a bit harsh. Lawyers should hold responsibility for contracts, and if HR are sending contract without lawyers involver, senior/c-suite should be responsible for allowing such a process. > nobody gave a shit about fines Much like doctors (I imagine) fines are inseparable from insurance, and or capital held/made from some activity. Fines covered by the money you made doing whatever you did are symbolic - they need to ramp up each time or they become meaningless. > You can't ask an employee to do something that could put them in prison Yes you can. If you think of a company as a collective, prison is an easy way to encourage scapegoating. I think a better way is license suspension. Break some trading law? You are no longer allowed to trade, all trading business now non-profitable. Required to supply some information proving you aren't up to no good? 30 days to provide it or your business license is suspended, all new business is illegal until resolved. target business activity and it's harder to do BAU in the face of penalties.
  - martin8412 5y ago
    Just fine the company equivalent to one years income for deliberately breaking the law
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      The problem with that is a company can have many parts - fining the entire company for one dept will discourage large corporations. They'll just restructure and push all the risk to 3rd-party/contactors.
- geofft 5y ago
  Another notable penalty option in finance (though I don't know how strong a disincentive it is in practice) is "You, personally, will be barred from working in the industry." Disbarring lawyers who do things that they know won't hold up in court seems like an interesting policy option here. Also, one complexity is that you want to phrase it in a way that respects the power differential. It is basically expected in the adversarial system that you raise all the arguments you think might work, and one potential way this plan could rot is "Public defenders get disbarred/imprisoned for making good-faith arguments that ended up not convincing a judge."
  - jevoten 5y ago
    That's why I phrased it as only taking effect after a legally-valid notification/warning (or maybe a couple). That way honest mistakes or ignorance of the law doesn't get you in trouble, and penalties can slowly escalate. There's little harm in the occasional illegal clause slipping through, after all - it's the norm that we want to change.
- chongli 5y ago
  You don’t need the threat of prison sentences for lawyers. All you need is the threat of disbarment. Lawyers will absolutely refuse to do anything that risks them being disbarred.

antihero 5y ago

Nope, prison sentences for lawyers/HR. This is the only thing people give a shit about. When I was working in finance nobody gave a shit about fines, the only thing people gave a shit about was the prison sentences potentially handed to people for fucking up AML. You can't ask an employee to do something that could put them in prison, but you can absolutely ask an employee to do something that risks the company to be fined.

Chris2048 5y ago
Punishments for lawyers, sure, but I think for HR is a bit harsh. Lawyers should hold responsibility for contracts, and if HR are sending contract without lawyers involver, senior/c-suite should be responsible for allowing such a process. > nobody gave a shit about fines Much like doctors (I imagine) fines are inseparable from insurance, and or capital held/made from some activity. Fines covered by the money you made doing whatever you did are symbolic - they need to ramp up each time or they become meaningless. > You can't ask an employee to do something that could put them in prison Yes you can. If you think of a company as a collective, prison is an easy way to encourage scapegoating. I think a better way is license suspension. Break some trading law? You are no longer allowed to trade, all trading business now non-profitable. Required to supply some information proving you aren't up to no good? 30 days to provide it or your business license is suspended, all new business is illegal until resolved. target business activity and it's harder to do BAU in the face of penalties.
- martin8412 5y ago
  Just fine the company equivalent to one years income for deliberately breaking the law
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    The problem with that is a company can have many parts - fining the entire company for one dept will discourage large corporations. They'll just restructure and push all the risk to 3rd-party/contactors.
geofft 5y ago
Another notable penalty option in finance (though I don't know how strong a disincentive it is in practice) is "You, personally, will be barred from working in the industry." Disbarring lawyers who do things that they know won't hold up in court seems like an interesting policy option here. Also, one complexity is that you want to phrase it in a way that respects the power differential. It is basically expected in the adversarial system that you raise all the arguments you think might work, and one potential way this plan could rot is "Public defenders get disbarred/imprisoned for making good-faith arguments that ended up not convincing a judge."
- jevoten 5y ago
  That's why I phrased it as only taking effect after a legally-valid notification/warning (or maybe a couple). That way honest mistakes or ignorance of the law doesn't get you in trouble, and penalties can slowly escalate. There's little harm in the occasional illegal clause slipping through, after all - it's the norm that we want to change.
chongli 5y ago
You don’t need the threat of prison sentences for lawyers. All you need is the threat of disbarment. Lawyers will absolutely refuse to do anything that risks them being disbarred.