7 ms·
Makes a ton of sense. Completely absurd for security guards and administrative assistants to have non-compete clauses. Just another way businesses were trying
by ptudan 4y ago
Makes a ton of sense. Completely absurd for security guards and administrative assistants to have non-compete clauses. Just another way businesses were trying to reduce the willingness of employees to quit so that they can suppress wages.
- DebtDeflation 4y agoIt jumped the shark a few years back when Jimmy Johns tried to force their "sandwich artists" to sign non-competes.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y agoDoes JJ refer to their employees as sandwich artists too? I thought that was just a Subway thing. But yeah, beyond ridiculous, as if a JJ employee is going to leak some crazy trade secret to Subway or whoever.
- justinpombrio 4y agoThat's the most hilarious double speak. I can only imagine the repressed artists getting told off for putting 5 slices of cheese on a foot-long instead of 4. "I was just trying to express myself, you said I was an artist."
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- aliqot 4y agoEveryone knows you spread mustard from right to left. We aren't knaves.
- munk-a 4y agoI assume the "sandwich artist" title is an allusion to that old saying - y'know because they pay their employees so little that they're starving.
- omginternets 4y agoJesus, “sandwich artist” is borderline insulting one’s intelligence. In France, the official term for a janitor was “surface technician”, which I previously considered to be the most condescending name for a job, but it has been violently dethroned by “sandwich artist”.
- lazide 4y agoAdmin assistants (like actual admin assistants) usually have access to full customer contact lists, and exposure to rather intimate details of the business and executives lives. They’re definitely not comparable to security guards in that sense.
- toomuchtodo 4y agoThis is not enough of an excuse to encumber someone from earning a living elsewhere. > “Employers need to get creative about how to impose restrictions to protect themselves against individuals” in whom they have made significant investments, or who have been allowed access to trade secrets, to protect themselves against such employees leaving, said Maxwell N. Shaffer, a partner with Holland & Knight LLP in Denver. The sort of healthy employee-employer relationship that retains talent.
- lazide 4y agoWhat is being banned are non-competes that don’t pay someone to not compete. There are legitimate reasons for actual non-competes in many of these cases, and CAlifornia for instance just requires you pay them for it. Which in such a situation seems justified.
- toomuchtodo 4y agoI agree. If you want to pay someone to sit on the bench because that has value to you ("Garden Leave"), I support that. If you want to twist their arm because you have power as an employer, nope. That's what labor law and regulation are for. Lots of examples of malicious employers doing the latter, as you'll note the sentiment throughout the thread comments and laws intending to patch this bug in statute.
- michaelmrose 4y agoWhy let them have that at all. The honest true is instead of worrying what strategy most balances the interests of 99.9% of people and a few whiny rich people we could spend that time creating actual value. Whereas if you want to continue on with the Rube Goldberg device we ought to force them to pay not employers present rate but market rate and cost of foregone opportunity. You might say that's incredibly unaffordable but that is the point. Otherwise the employer is robbing society of the value created in addition to stealing the difference between present rate and market rate + foregone opportunities.
- jasonwatkinspdx 4y agoBelieve it or not they're now being used for fast food employees.
- nraynaud 4y agoWhat is a bit hilarious is the idea that the new guy will change any procedure at his new place because of his experience somewhere else. “Thank you, but it’s the franchise HQ who makes the rules, not the rank and file”
- jasonwatkinspdx 4y agoIt's just a retention tool, a shitty abusive one.
- msrenee 4y agoPetsmart makes you sign one or at least used to. For the groomers that they sent to training, it makes sense. For the cashiers, it ought to be illegal to have them sign it even though it's mostly unenforceable. It's an intimidation tactic. There's nothing that a damn pet store employee learns in training or in 5 years on the floor that could even begin to be considered a trade secret. Reminds me of how Gallup made everyone sign a 6-month contract in an at-will state. If you want folks to stay for at least 6 months, then don't suck so much to work for. One of the cultiest places I've ever had the misfortune to work at.