3 ms·
Did you really just combine "fact of capitalism" and "it's unfair for the current company to feel cheated" in the same sentence? Where in the facts of capitali
by dalke 12y ago
Did you really just combine "fact of capitalism" and "it's unfair for the current company to feel cheated" in the same sentence?
Where in the facts of capitalism does it say that companies will be fair in how they treat their employees, and that time off to seek employment elsewhere is part of being fair?
In fact, I thought it was the other way around. When someone changes a job, they get a revaluation of what their job is worth. Often the job change comes with a salary increase and higher status in the new company. This serves to raise the price of a worker. By discouraging workers from leaving, a company can keep its wages lower because the workers are not as coupled to the market rate.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- zaroth 12y agoHmm... I guess I did! I am thinking the market for workers required the reasonably free flow of workers between companies. Obviously there are issues with our labor market, but I don't think it's so bad that employers are able to actively prevent employees from spending even significant amounts of time job searching. Of course I'm not saying employers should pay for the employee to search for a new job (although in practice that often happens to some extent). Just that they can't stop them, and shouldn't be able to retaliate against employees who spend time off the clock interviewing. To your point, I couldn't find any particular CA or Fed statues that guarantee this. If CA doesn't offer it, then I guess it must be far-fetched on my part.