3 ms·

This brings us back to my original comment where I said that generally companies do tax evasion in Romania and most "job creation" involves a certain degree of

This brings us back to my original comment where I said that generally companies do tax evasion in Romania and most "job creation" involves a certain degree of tax evasion. I guess the same happens in Hungary too. About firing, it does seems fair to me: an employee can just quit at any time with no reason so a company should also be able to fire at any time. They way I see it, asking for a return of "subsidies" should be regulated some more. But not outright banned since I can clearly see some situations where it would make sense. I am able to add non-compete to a contract, it's just not worth it because the ex-employee will still be getting at least half a salary each month. I don't see why they should be banned.

bad_user 15y ago
On non-competes - because the potential for abuse far outweigh the benefits for employers. It is also a way to subvert the free-market rules. In California non-competes are not valid, except for equity stakeholders. Silicon Valley is in California and clearly the lack of this privilege hasn't done much harm to businesses - quite the contrary, if the correlation with their success in the software industry says anything about it (the same argument could be made pro software patents, however software patents have only began to be seriously accepted / enforced recently - and I feel like Silicon Valley will see a decline because of it).