3 ms·
>Turns out if someone owns enough capital, they can do exactly what you claim is impossible in capitalism. The only legal way to do that is if a laborer signs
by yucky 5y ago
>Turns out if someone owns enough capital, they can do exactly what you claim is impossible in capitalism.
The only legal way to do that is if a laborer signs a non-compete agreement. These didn't, and that's why it's not enforceable.
- diob 5y agoAh, so it is possible in capitalism. Crazy how you've turned on a dime. And I can guarantee you it isn't the only legal way. How much leverage by the way do you think a worker has in capitalism to _not_ sign a non compete? Are they not fairly standard in industries? Why do you think that is? Who does it benefit?
- yucky 5y ago>Ah, so it is possible in capitalism. No, you misread. What the judge tried to do (and failed) is not possible in Capitalism. You can't force an employee to not work at a competitor. An employee who signs a non-compete agreement is not being forced to not work for a competitor. Consent is a thing. As an analogy, you're saying if someone consents to sex, then rape is allowed as well.
- diob 5y agoI did not misread, I was responding to the non compete. It is literally possible. The judge thing, meh, it's kind of crazy that they still barred them from working for a while. What the fuck are you even trying to say about consent? Just to humor you, forced coercion isn't consent. Most don't have the means to say no to a non compete. As a real analogy, it's like you as a boss asking a subordinate who needs a job to have sex with you. They reluctantly say yes, is that consent? Maybe try and answer my questions instead of redirecting in a weird way. How much leverage by the way do you think a worker has in capitalism to _not_ sign a non compete? Are they not fairly standard in industries? Why do you think that is? Who does it benefit?