jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (70 posts)

American Slavery in the 21st Century?What are "non-compete" agreements

  1. Credence2 profile image87
    Credence2posted 4 months ago

    Well, folks, I confess to love the internet and the World Wide Web because I get to learn so much.
    What is this non-compete agreement concept? Please read the first two articles, the second is rather lengthy, for an answer.

    After you have read, ask yourself, if conservatives are so much for self-reliance and extolling individual achievement why do they turn a blind eye to the obvious abuse of working people by the corporate class? Who do you think is behind this and why do you think that Trump will be slow to correct this while Obama attempted to get the loathsome practice eliminated? What makes anyone think that Trump and his administration are going to turn against “one of their own”?

    I thought that slavery was abolished over 150 years ago, could I be wrong in that today’s rightwingers have plans to reinstitute it?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/opin … .html?_r=0

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/busi … 2&_r=0

    1. Will Apse profile image88
      Will Apseposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Just picking up on one point from the NYT article about individual freedom...

      Strong welfare safety nets make people feel much more relaxed, more adventurous and generally more trusting of the whole business of life.

      Set one foot wrong in a country without a safety net and you are in serious, serious trouble.

      I can also testify that there is a lot more praying in very rightwing countries because people are scared of what tomorrow might bring, lol.

      None of this applies to the wealthy, obviously.

      1. Credence2 profile image87
        Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Welcome to Trumps America, where a return to the concept of serfdom is in the cards in favor of the Corporate Class that Trump is dedicated to support.

        Unfortunately, there are so many on the receiving end of the big screw that have yet to figure this out.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Conservatives don't consider the completely voluntary action of signing a contract to be "slavery".  Do liberals?

      Hopefully Trump will put the idea that liberals must write all private contracts in file 13, where it belongs.  Unlike Obama, who seemed to enjoy interfering in the private lives of others because only he knew what was best for everyone.

      1. Credence2 profile image87
        Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Some contractual  arrangements must be considered illegal on their very face. In California, such contracts are illegal and should be. You conservative types are all alike, the employer is free to fire anyone without reason, but the employee in order to have a job must submit to being not less than a slave to the employer.

        Can you not see what is going on? Did you read the article, do you not recognize the trend and see where it is leading?

        If I got a job at McDonalds with a non-compete contract clause, the employer has no incentive to provide competitive wages, labor protection, etc. You are not going to leave, since you do not have skill to perform work beyond that for which the employer trained you.  Because, after all, if you quit to go to Burger King, McD can file suit against you.

        Is this the "freedom" you conservative always rattle on about?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Absolutely correct.  Some contracts are illegal and should not be allowed.  And yes California, the bastion of liberalism and in-your-face control of everything a person does, makes such contracts illegal.  Obviously over the wall in controlling others as no other state does it.

          An employee is free to terminate employment as they wish and an employer is free to do the same as they wish.  Sounds equitable to me!

          Yes, I read it.  The liberal author wishes to make it law that liberals write personal contracts, according to liberal policies that destroy business whenever possible.

          If you don't want to sign the contract, complete with a non-compete clause, then don't sign it!  You don't need a nanny state to make that decision for you and if you're stupid enough to do it anyway, you have only yourself to blame.  You are responsible for yourself, not the nanny state you would make responsible for not only you but everyone around you.

          1. Credence2 profile image87
            Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Every time there is a discussion that you have a problem with it has got to be from a "liberal author"

            The article said that these contracts have increased over the last few years. What if instead of one in five it increases to one in two? Is that enough to raise the alarm for you?

            Yeah, right, the employee is free to leave as long as he agrees not to work for another burger flipper. If every job has such a contract associated with it, it must follow that to be able to work you must agree not to work for anyone else in the same capacity if you leave that job, how is that possible? Such contracts already exist in Hawaii hotel chains. So I agree to sign the contract to just get a job, if I leave the job, who has the right to hamstring me in regards to getting another?

            There are universal constraints, employers are not free to do just what they want.

        2. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          I'm not sure non compete contracts go that far. If you learn a skill from a company, you are given contacts by that company, you know the trade secrets of that company and you know what it costs to provide service from that company.....you could very easily run them out of business, given the right circumstances. I don't think it is too much to ask for you not to compete.

          I used to work for a company where the general rule was that people came in, worked there for a few years, until they'd built up a relationship with a group and then they left, taking that business with them. There was no non compete contract to sign but it seemed rather churlish, to me, to steal clients.

          1. Credence2 profile image87
            Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Yes, the article seems to indicate that and I will need to have documented proof to believe otherwise.

            There are many conditions where such an arrangement is made and is necessary, but not for hotel workers in Hawaii, for example. How far do we take such a thing?

            if every job had such a provision and there seems to be nothing that is going to stop corporate America from expanding the contract, you are, in effect, imprisoned by your employer. You either work for him or find it exceedingly difficult to find another job. I don't like anyone to have that kind of power over people's right to work for whomever they wish,  contract or no. Contracts like these should be null and void and conception.

            1. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              I'd have to read the non compete agreements. I wouldn't think a hotel worker leaving and going to another hotel would qualify as competing. Maybe if they started a hotel that would qualify. You can't compete with someone if you don't own a business or if it can't be proven that your working for someone else might damage the former business.

    3. colorfulone profile image89
      colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Do you think the television personalities on CNN or MSNBC should not have to sign a $20 million contract that includes a noncompete agreement before engaging in manufacturing mountains out of mole hills to smear political oppositions?   I mean the way those people act deceptively publicly spreading propaganda, how can they be trusted with trade secrets on how to fabricate disinformation, or with confidential information to sabotage the President of the United States?

      Like Donna Brazile leaking CNN debt questions to Hillary Clinton?
      I'm sure Donna got paid well!  (President Donald Trump, WON!)

      The best you could come up with is the average worker for McD's or the BKing? But, I suppose their CEO's do have to sign a contract limiting them from working for the competition at the highest pay grade levels.  Those contract would be limited to a duration on time.

      A business contract within States is something the federal government needs to stay out of.  Obama was always meddling in State's rights to decide, but I'm sure there would be ban exceptions for the six corporations that own 90% of liberal-leaning media in all of liberal States. Always exceptions to those rules.   

      Would anyone without a slave mentality to the nanny state be able to make corporate contract law between an employer and an employee about slavery?  I certainly hope no one is being forced to sign a contract that protects their employers.  Everyone has a choice to get off or stay off the plantations. 

      Keep on learning.

      1. Credence2 profile image87
        Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

        I am not talking about those in the world of multimillion dollar contracts, you should be aware of that. The CEOs are not the workers. What if the only choice of employment is a plantation, what then? Then there is the slavery that you conservatives seem to crave for.

        You conservatives talk about states rights, what about the states that choose to legalize marijuana?Rightwingers are such hypocrites... But that is a topic for another time and place?

        1. colorfulone profile image89
          colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Wow, you sure do have it out for "conservatives" and "ring-wingers". 
          We have talk about this kind hatred before.

          "The CEOs are not the workers." 
          -  They don't work? 

          "What if the only choice of employment is a plantation, what then?" 
          -  What if that doesn't happen?  I realize some people don't think they have a choice, while others are at liberty to make choices. 

          "talk about states rights, what about the states that choose to legalize marijuana?"
          -  I think that should be up to the States. 

          "Rightwingers are such hypocrites..."
          Some are, but I don't see that in the HubPages Forums.  But, that's a topic for another time.

          1. Credence2 profile image87
            Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Wow, you sure do have it out for "conservatives" and "ring-wingers". 
            We have talk about this kind hatred before.
            ------------------------------------
            Nothing more than the same hatred that you have expressed for the left and progressive ideas....
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            "The CEOs are not the workers." 
            -  They don't work? 
            ------
            Lets not be silly, you know and I have reiterated that problem lies with lower paid workers
            -------
            "What if the only choice of employment is a plantation, what then?" 
            -  What if that doesn't happen?  I realize some people don't think they have a choice, while others are at liberty to make choices. 
            --------
            It is not a matter of "what if", it is instead not an issue of can't be.
            ----------
            "talk about states rights, what about the states that choose to legalize marijuana?"
            -  I think that should be up to the States. 
            --------------
            Talk to your Lord and master, Donald Trump and his elfin sidekick, Sessions, they seem to take issue with your view.
            -----------------
            "Rightwingers are such hypocrites..."
            Some are, but I don't see that in the HubPages Forums.  But, that's a topic for another time.
            -------
            You are right, it is a topic for another time.

            But if you want to get educated rather than merely parrot 'rightthink', the link from the Department of Treasury that I will provide will better make my case clear to you.

            In the first attached article from the Times, there is the following excerpt:

            "Let’s talk first about those noncompete agreements, which were recently the subject of a stunning article in The Times (the latest in a series), plus a report from the Obama administration pushing for limits to the practice"

            "Report" is hyperlinked and leads to a 16 page study that has to be downloaded, prepared by the Treasury Dept. during the Obama administration.

            1. GA Anderson profile image83
              GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              Touche'

              GA

    4. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      What did you type , "....  you love the internet because you love to learn so much "?  Were that to be true , I would never have learned how a voluntary signing of a document equates to "slavery "    ,  I as well as many others ,have actually  had the pleasure of learning  before the internet  in fact before Trump that there are actually some things you can learn without the internet ,  for one ,     Thar false topics such as this  can almost always be traced to political correctness , something also not created by Trump or conservatives , for your learning pleasure ;.
      unlike liberals ,
      - Trump didn't invent slavery nor the opposition to ending it -liberals did that all alone
      - Trump  didn't invent "non compete agreements "
      - Trump didn't even invent the internet [Al Gore did ]
      - Trump didn't invent the 'blame the right' division  of the democratic party

      Many   aren't really doing so well learning from the internet  , could I suggest a history book?

      1. Credence2 profile image87
        Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

        You don't seem to get it, it is not voluntary if everyone has to submit to it to just get a job. Is it any wonder why I loath conservatives and the values that they seem to espouse. All of the rest of your diatribe is idle banter. Since when are you the authority?

        1. ahorseback profile image47
          ahorsebackposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Oh so Trump did invent slavery and your internet encyclopedia and the non-compete clause ?  I wish  I'd  known before I voted .
          You should have disclosed all this earlier , maybe  you were too busy defending Hilary  ?

        2. ahorseback profile image47
          ahorsebackposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          What you don't get about the "big bad slave driver companies"  Is that , as long as it's within the labor laws of America ,  a company  can contractually hire you , train you ,re-locate you  fire  you , have you wear orange jump  suits , high heels and fake gorilla heads , IF YOU sign that contract as you are hired . 

          Maybe what you don't get Credence  ,  in all your  liberal entitlments , is that you think you are above the laws of an employee hiring  contract  ?

          Some advice , don't take the  opportunity to get hired there ., go somewhere else .

          1. Credence2 profile image87
            Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

            What if there is NO Where else, ahorseback? Do you bother to read any of the links or the reports provided, before you open that big oriface on your cabesa?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              A common complaint, that there ARE no jobs anywhere in the country.  Obviously false, but we still hear it on a regular basis, don't we?

              1. Credence2 profile image87
                Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

                For right now, perhaps. But if you looked at the material provided a trend that is to the benefit of corporate firms can continue with nothing to abate it. Fortunately, many States are legally circumscribing the reach of such contracts or simply making them unenforceable, either option is good enough for me.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  This sounds like saying "I don't like the job you have available, so will ask politicians to legislate that you provide a job, just for me, that I will enjoy.  If you don't want the job, don't take it!  It's really that simple, and to imply that all jobs in the future will require this terrible contract is but a pretense.

                  No Credence, the solution to preventing us from harming ourselves isn't always to legislate others.  Sometime, somewhere, we have to figure out that we are responsible for ourselves - that the Great Daddy in Washington can't do it as well as we can, and wouldn't if it could.

                  1. Credence2 profile image87
                    Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    No Credence, the solution to preventing us from harming ourselves isn't always to legislate others. 

                    Well, on the contrary, I say many times that legislation is appropriate. Conservatives relish the idea that the rich and powerful who have no problems using their financial resources are free to exploit anyone without recourse.

                    https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/the-bureau/

                    Is it any wonder Trump fights so hard to resist this concept?

                    It is no wonder that the Right and the left will remain at loggerheads for the forseeable future.

  2. abwilliams profile image83
    abwilliamsposted 4 months ago

    "Unfortunately, there are so many on the receiving end of the big screw that have yet to figure this out"
    You know... that is the exact same thing I was thinking this morning, when I saw pictures of the victims "on the receiving end of the big screw"!
    Just children, out doing what children do; going to concerts, hanging with their friends, taking selfies and yet they were targeted because radicalized, evil-doers do not care about the life of a kid or the life of any other for that matter.

    "The big screw" is that these Monsters have infiltrated into all Countries, Cities and Towns, because we are all so P.C.! It is far more important​ to not talk of walls or fences and to not speak of security measures and proper vetting, to ignore laws put in place for our protection.
    It is far more important to criticize any man or woman who points out the need to take these measures.
    What was the question?

    1. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

      I certainly can't say that I disagree with you, but you are a bit off topic...

  3. GA Anderson profile image83
    GA Andersonposted 4 months ago

    Well Credence2, You must have meant to post this on the choir room message board...



    ... because with thoughts like those, there certainly doesn't seem to be any room for discussion, beyond wilderness' 'voluntary contract' thought.

    You apparently want to make a statement that other choir members can offer witness to, or offer an Amen brother!   

    So why post it as a question in a discussion forum?

    GA

    1. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

      I am open to discussion on this topic pro and con, the only difference is that I make my point of view evident in the beginning.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Cons:  It once more inserts government control where it doesn't belong.
        It interfere's in private contracts, which are no business of government committees or bureaucrats.
        It institutes additional rules for business that accomplish little but driving costs up.
        Pros:  It provides help for those citizens of a nanny state that are too stupid or uneducated to read what they sign.

        The cons win.

  4. abwilliams profile image83
    abwilliamsposted 4 months ago

    Yes I was off topic, but your particular chosen words took me there.
    On Topic...This Employer (and "right-winger") would just like for People to show up; show up to Apply, show up more than two days in a row, show up on time and show up ready and willing to produce...
    Just to have that back, once again, would be a wonderful thing, then I could give some thought to what it is that you are saying/asking.

    1. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

      I have no issue about the your desire under the traditional working relationship, this concept of non-compete goes too far.

      No one should be able to contractually restrict my right to work elsewhere if I choose to leave. The only exception are scientific and r and d related positions, where the lost of trade secrets is a serious concern.  I can't believe that one in five of the workers are in such a position.

      1. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Hi bud, let me offer another possible example to see if it might make your exceptions list.

        An ambitious young lady opens a gymnastics studio. She needs to hire and train new associates to help teach her classes. She ends up with a hefty investment in those new hires - both time and money. As the business grows she must place her trust in her hires.

        Personal interaction and relationship development between teacher and student is an integral part of a successful studio. The students develop an attachment to their instructors.

        Without a non-compete, a new hire could stay around long enough to be taught the skills of the position, cultivate those student attachments, and then leave... open their own studio and then cannibalize the owner's client roster of those students she was hired to teach. Which in turn would be devastating to the young entrepreneur's, (that took the original risk of starting the business), business.

        In this example, (a personal family one), employment was conditioned on a 30-mile geographical radius non-compete clause.

        Could you see this as a possible exception you could live with?

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image87
          Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

          GA,
          I am not saying that there are not circumstances where such agreements are necessary. But the article speaks of one of every 5 American jobs. The trend has been accelerating over the past few years and what is there to stop this reaching a point where every other available job, regardless of how menial and low paid will have such provisions in it. You read the articles, you know that this trend is becoming more pronounced and it has a double effect of cornering the employees with the threat over their head that you accept the terms and conditions of your employer; wages, terms and conditions of employment, etc. In the old days we could just walk away and simply find another job, why talk of law suits by McD against a employee for taking 'trade secrets'  attained at McDonalds if he or she wanted better working conditions and salary at Burger King instead? I am saying that a practice that has been prescribed under specific and exacting conditions can now  be used for every worker, ditch diggers included.

          1. colorfulone profile image89
            colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Just because you are saying it doesn't make it so.  Have you every States' enforcement rules in the power of what you say? 

            We can work at the State level for change, but that isn't going to make it so either.

            1. Credence2 profile image87
              Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

              Read the Treasury report, unless, like so many rightwing types you prefer to lean on your ideas and intuition rather than giving credibility to scholarly treatises and reports from those qualified to speak on such matters.

              1. colorfulone profile image89
                colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                Could you provide a link to that please, unless like the far-left types you haven't actually seen or read it for yourself as you suggest?  I am certainly qualified to read and understand it and speak on it.

          2. GA Anderson profile image83
            GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Well there you go, that was the point I wanted to make originally, but I thought it would be better if you got there by yourself.

            It is not the "non-compete clause" that you are against, it is the abuse of it that is your point. Right?

            It is not the "non-compete clause" that draws your slavery and serfdom condemnations, it is the abuse of it that draws your ire, right?

            It is not the  "non-compete clause" traps a worker on the "plantation," it's the 'Rightie conservative' business owners that abuse it that you are denigrating, right?

            And you know that all those non-complete clause using businesses are Right-winger owned, right?

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image87
              Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

              Well there you go, that was the point I wanted to make originally, but I thought it would be better if you got there by yourself.
              ---------
              Well GA, that is why I stir the pot initially, as it helps me clarify my points and understand the reasoning behind the rightwinger/conservative.
              ------------
              It is not the "non-compete clause" that you are against, it is the abuse of it that is your point. Right?
              -----------
              That is correct.
              -------------------
              It is not the "non-compete clause" that draws your slavery and serfdom condemnations, it is the abuse of it that draws your ire, right?
              ______
              That is correct.
              ---------------------

              It is not the  "non-compete clause" traps a worker on the "plantation," it's the 'Rightie conservative' business owners that abuse it that you are denigrating, right?
              ----------------------------
              If the use  non-compete clauses are abused by business and industry it is the equivalent of trapping people on 'plantations'
              --------------------------------------------------
              And you know that all those non-complete clause using businesses are Right-winger owned, right?
              ---------------
              I can't say that, but I will say that in the age of Trump aggressive action to curb abuse is not forthcoming as he is generally anti-little guy and anti-labor. Please see the link and reference to the true report on the seriousness of this matter that I left on a response to Colorfulone.

              1. Will Apse profile image88
                Will Apseposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                Sorry to deflect from the non-compete issue but there are so many instances in which rightwing thinking destroys individual freedom.

                Mostly, in the US, rightwing thinking swirls around making money. Making slaves of your employees with restrictive contracts, is just one example.

                I segued into issues concerned with inner freedom (and individual agency) because I can't help myself, lol.

                Thanks for your patience.

                1. Credence2 profile image87
                  Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  "Mostly, in the US, rightwing thinking swirls around making money. Making slaves of your employees with restrictive contracts, is just one example."

                  Thanks, Will, It is good  to know that someone can actually see this. It is a shame that I have to travel across the Atlantic to get that endorsement. 

                  Such is the state of American politics today.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  "Mostly, in the US, rightwing thinking swirls around making money. Making slaves of your employees with restrictive contracts, is just one example."

                  Mostly, in the US, leftwing thinking swirls around taking money from a worker/producer to give to those that don't support themselves, effectively turning all workers into slaves of the entitlement philosophy that demands they support not only themselves but the country as a whole plus those that don't do it themselves and destroying any individual freedom to enjoy and profit from our personal efforts.

                  Both contain just enough truth that they can be spun into something that sounds true, but both contain sufficient exaggeration as to make then untenable to anyone honest enough to look hard at what is being stated.

                  1. Will Apse profile image88
                    Will Apseposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    And how are you planning to profit from your personal efforts when every increase in productivity in the US goes straight into the pockets of the wealthy? Income for every other group has flatlined over the last thirty years, or declined.

                3. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  Business seems to be a right wing endeavor and, yes, it does swirl around making money. As a business owner I will say that I believe your point does apply to corporate America. But, corporate America is often times foreign owned. When you have owners so far away from their employees the needs of the employees usually takes a back seat to profit.  Even if the owners are domestic, they are worried more about satisfying share holders than ensuring their workforce is taken care of.    I was just talking to a salesman who was lamenting the fact that his company has gone through mergers and where previously the credit department knew the customer now the credit department has even caused trouble for customers who have been with them for thirty years; because they are in the northern US and not here where the business is done. There is no longer a relationship.

                  Small business owners (such as myself) live next door to their neighbors and are not inclined to dream of enslaving them.

              2. GA Anderson profile image83
                GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                Hi Cred, here is your report link:
                Non-Compete Agreements: Analysis of the Usage, PotentialIssues, and State Responses

                I will get back to you after reading it.

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image87
                  Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  Thanks, GA, You're one of the 'good ones'....

          3. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            I would have to see facts and figures to believe that 20% of the workforce has signed a non-compete agreement.  Certainly no one in the blue collar building industry has, and I really doubt that any blue collar worker has.  Can't see any earning less than $40,000 as doing so - that leaves out all the low paying jobs.  No government job does.  Teachers don't.  Don't believe the health industry does.

            It isn't leaving much, certainly not 20% of the population.  I'd have to see some proof of that claim before I'd believe even a tenth of it.

            1. Credence2 profile image87
              Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

              You are an  accomplished fellow, wilderness. But I will not accept the validity of your thinking and intuition against a report from experts in the field. And, I apologize for that at the outset.

              In article 1 from the New York Times there is a hyperlink "report". it is PDF and I have not been able to link it. But there, you will find your perspective viewpoints somewhat discredited.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                Somewhat discredited.  As in 3% of the workforce with a non-compete clause?  That i might believe, though it still seems high.

  5. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 4 months ago

    All you have to do Credence , is say , "No thank you I don't want this job ",  .......   My step son  just took another job similar to the last after signing non- compete .  previously ;   Company one says - "We are going to sue  you "   .......  He asks  company two if they will  pay for attorney , they say no !  ........ He says to company one ........ " Go ahead and sue me ".

    Not many companies are going to go after  deal breakers , they  won't spend the money . Meaning ;

    A scare tactic isn't slavery .

    1. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Alright, Ahorseback, let's look at your hypothetical.

      I am not concern with what people (the first company) won't do, but what can do and what they are permitted to do,  period.

      Just because you think they won't spend the money in the suit, does not mean that option is not available to them. I want that option removed, period.

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Want it removed , then don't sign it .     I began a job managing a company in  1993 , one of the requirements  was the non-compete clause , in the  fury of hiring me quickly and from a distance  the clause was forgotten until a year later ,   when they finally said "please sign this "  , I said ....."Ah nope "and   I continued to work for the company without that clause  for another three  years until I voluntarily left there .  I have to believe if enough hire's  said no - it would disappear on its own .

        Voluntary employment  still isn't slavery !

  6. Will Apse profile image88
    Will Apseposted 4 months ago

    All this stuff is about control. Rightwing notions of 'freedom' are orientated to the needs of business not the individual.

    Individuals are kept within strict bounds.

    The rightwing world works like this:

    Punish children if they transgress (a slap, a bellow, a belt), without explaining why
    This makes for adults who are frightened of authority and angry with everyone
    These people need to be controlled by outside forces
    And they expect others to be controlled by outside forces, too, because they assume others are like them, and frightened and angry people are dangerous.

    The liberal world looks more like this:

    When a child transgresses explain the consequences of their behavior and why it is wrong
    This makes for adults who have internalized a moral code and retained a normal empathy
    These people can be relied upon to be their own moral compass
    They expect others to be treated with respect, as they have been

    In the US, everything is set for more and more authoritarian control, more people in jail, more people scared every day of their lives but revelling in the cruel treatment of others.

    1. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Will, I find it hard to think of a more misplaced label than yours used here. Even though I think your comparison is obnoxiously wrong, I will take a chance and ask a question, (or three).

      How do Liberals react to that child after the fourth explanation of the "whys" and the "consequences," and the behavior is repeated?

      What do Liberals do when the child, after understanding your usual reaction to misbehavior, won't even stop the misbehaving long enough for you to, once again, for the ninth time, explain the "whys" and the "consequences?"

      Also, how does your  "Right-wing world" attribution deal with the studies, (you can find them as quickly as I did to write this reply), that show that low-income African-American parents, (a majority democrat/liberal population), register as the largest percentage of parents that apply corporal punishment, (89%)?

      But... you might be right about the real issue being "control." Although one thought might be that it is the resistance to control that might be on your mind. Relative to the Right-wing world I mean.

      GA

      1. Will Apse profile image88
        Will Apseposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        If a child pulls a sibling's hair these are a few responses:

        That is wrong. Why?. Because I said so. Why? Slap.

        You are an evil child! Slap.

        Stop crying and hit back (to the injured party)

        How do you feel when someone does that to you?

        Why did you pull your sister/brothers hair? You know that he/she loves you. And I think you love them too, really. Think about it for a while and then maybe say sorry.

        It takes longer to encourage children to become aware of the consequences of their actions and encourage them to be genuinely responsible.

        If you have already slapped a child around, they will never listen to anything you say and after that you will really be beating them every day to 'keep them in line'.

        And in many ways that is the liberal/rightwing split. You can enter dialogue to resolve issues or go for coercion/violence. And violence breeds violence.

        Authority can rest either in the individual or the state. I know which I prefer.

        1. GA Anderson profile image83
          GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Will, you simply explained a scenario as you see it. regarding your Right-wing vs. Liberal thought process. I already got that from your first comment.

          I am still interested in your answers to the questions I posed.

          GA

      2. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Actually, GA, Will does have a valid point.  Corporal punishment is largely banned across Europe.  In Britain it was made illegal in schools in 1986, later followed with strict legal limits in the home.

        I know from historic family documents e.g. from diaries and word of mouth etc., that my great-great grandfather didn’t believe in corporal punishment in the home, and that’s a tradition that’s been passed down through the generations.  Neither I nor my wife had corporal punishment (in school or at home), and when we had our son, our policy was to carry on with the family tradition.

        To answer your question, if I ever did anything wrong my mother would explain to me why it was wrong, and having a valid reason was enough for me.  Likewise, with our son, explaining the wrongs of his actions was always all that was needed; once he had a reason why something was wrong (rather than just being hit for no apparent reason) then that was enough for him and he didn’t do it again.

        From a political aspect, my grandfather (from the above mentioned) was a staunch Labour (Socialist) supporter, as was my mother, and as I, my wife and our son are.

        This video is just for fun; although I think it may have some truth in it: - https://youtu.be/V4nMzD1OmDE

        1. GA Anderson profile image83
          GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Hi nathanville, I was aware of the European thoughts on corporal punishment, and I am not reeeally advocating corporal punishment.  But, the idea that you can successfully reason with a 3 or 4-yr. old is an optimistic one.

          Since I think this discussion is more than just a tangent to Credence2's topic, I will open a topic thread for us to finish this discussion. I hope to see you and Will there.

          Is Corporal Punishment For Children A Right-wing Tenant?

          GA

          1. Will Apse profile image88
            Will Apseposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Why would you reason with a child that young? The emotions, on the other hand are fully developed at that age. Point out the emotional consequences of their actions and you will achieve strong results.

            A few clues:

            Even young children have a strong sense of their own power. They know that they can cause harm.
            Children care very much about the wellbeing of their family
            Children want to be a strong and useful part of their family.
            If they realise that their behavior is damaging the things that are most important to them, they will give the matter a lot of thought.

  7. abwilliams profile image83
    abwilliamsposted 4 months ago

    By the time this Discussion runs its course, Employment (Working for a living) itself, will be Right Wing thinking, therefore Bad. LOL?

    1. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

      AB, nobody is going there...

    2. colorfulone profile image89
      colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Working for a living for the far-left-wingers is suddenly slavery?  I don't see any compassion from them for the people who work for a living and pay their fair share of taxes.  Only the special interest groups are entitled to compassion?  I think that page has been turned...but, oh the resistance!  They will just have to find away to fight their way out of that wet paper bag, or be aided compassionately in doing so for their own good...off the plantation.  (that does not apply to those who truly qualify to be taken care of)

    3. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      The complaints that "workfare" was demeaning and inhuman says it all in that regard.

    4. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Absolutely ,    It lines itself up with wars , violence , crime ,  poverty ,  child abuse , slavery , drug abuse and even having to go to work itself !.............You name it ,      if its evil [to liberals ]   it was created by  republicans !

      That is their  best attempt at Bi- Partisan  solutions to any social problem  !

  8. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago

    I can't understand why a capitalist would support a non-compete agreement.  Capitalists extol the virtues of competition.  That is supposed to be what makes an economy thrive. 

    Oh, wait, could it be certain powerful, wealthy corporations would benefit from limiting competition for workers?  Hmmmmm........

    1. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Nice to have you back, Panther.....

  9. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 4 months ago

    Oh be serious people ,   Non- competition "agreements "  are a contract voluntarily signed ,  and generally are set for a period of time after ending employment .   1-  2- 3  year  agreements  are what I have experienced and seen .  A year or two is Not exactly slavery .

    But then today , for many ,  a job is actually considered slavery .

 
working