That's not true unless the contract required the company to take some tangible action or pay for something. Maybe if there is a real quid pro quo (you don't quit and we pay for your college/masters/certification) that might be the case but that's a different discussion.
First no one is saying society should intervene. The question is should a court enforce it if asked. Second, if your opinion is that courts should prioritize enforcing non-compete agreements over all other considerations then fair enough but I'd say that's pretty myopic both about the realities of the world and how the law works.
I think the investment stuff is a nice little piece of BS put together by the company's legal and/or marketing office to avoid calling this what it is which is a non-compete. There are certain instances where a person provides a highly specialized skill or is in a position to poach personnel or a client base where thats reasonable but for the policy reasons stated above (as well as just plain old fairness in our economic system) I don't think they ever are for run of the mill employees, middle management, etc.
You're too focused on the individual circumstances. Again, imagine this applied on a macro level where leaving one non-specialist job for a better non-specialist job is penalized (potentially ruinously). Would we be encouraging a mobile workforce that climbs or a sclerotic workforce where people are stuck where they are? Are we encouraging employer-employee litigation or minimizing it? Are we creating more bankrupt people or fewer? Are we encouraging productivity or discouraging it because people are trapped?
This isn't about whether or not she is sympathetic and it's why there's more to contract and employment law than 'well the fool signed the dotted line so that's that.'
On Rieves I think there are sound public policy reasons not to enforce a contract like that. Imagine if every company required it. It would create arbitrary restrictons on the movement of human capital that could hurt economic growth and people's ability to get ahead, earn more, and engage in economic activity. In many ways it's the same as the type of regulations that the French have that lock up the labor market, it just favors the employer instead of the employee.
Assuming unions in the United States haven't already crossed the line into irreversible decline I think your proposal might give them a new lease on life. The challenge I think would be finding a way to fund the union in a way that workers could live with even with the knowledge that they could still be fired or laid off.
On Syria I think there's a serious question as to what we really can do to help. Also note that this is being published by a rebel organization that if I had to guess wants more military assistance from the West. I don't think that Syria's children will benefit much from America giving more weapons to random militants in the desert or dropping more ordnance.
I think the intent probably depends on the officer but I'm not sure it matters. The system is so full of bad incentives that I think it can cause even well-meaning, regular people to use excessive force. The protection from consequences is itself only part of a bigger web of bad policy (quota based policing, over-criminalization) and cultural problems (thin blue line).
@mike-dwyer I think it's completely fair to ask if there aren't other professions where we should be asking these questions. That said I can't think of any other profession out there that are as protected from accountability as the police. Graham v. Connor, while sounding reasonable enough in print, has resulted in extreme deference to the decision of officers on the scene. Combine that with qualified immunity, powerful unions, toothless civilian oversight boards, LEO bill of rights, and a siege mentality that keeps the police from telling on each other and citizens revering the thin blue line and we get to a place where it's hard to hold the police accountable for even the most outrageous conduct.
I mean, the only place I can think of where it might be more difficult to discipline someone for on the job activity is a sitting chief executive (president, governor, mayor etc.) and at least they have to face the voters periodically.
I think you're alluding to this but the cameras themselves, while helpful in some situations I don't think are necessarily the panacea people think they are. In addition to making sure they're used appropriately, cameras can allow the officer to become the director of how things appear on screen. It's quite possible to record incidents in a manner that presents a misleading picture of the encounter. Absent additional reform I see no reason to think that law enforcement wouldn't get pretty good at choreographing scenes in ways that are favorable to their perspective.
@kazzy the public school teacher union issue I think is extremely difficult. My opinion is that the problems we have with education in this country don't really stem from incompetent teachers (not that they don't exist). They stem from the fact that we expect the public education system to solve all kinds of profound socioeconomic problems that we're unwilling to address comprehensively. I think it might be easier to dissolve teachers unions if we didn't expect teachers in poor jurisdictions to be miracle workers or hold them responsible for the failure of students arising from issues teachers can't control. Unfortunately we've spent so much time convincing ourselves that education alone is enough.
I probably fall in a weird place on the scale. I support ending all public sector unions because I think they inherently create a new constituency for the government to serve when by its nature the government should serve everyone equally. Improvements in public policy shouldn't be frustrated because it isnt in the interest of some some group of government employees. The public good should always win out.
I'm much more sympathetic to unions in the private sector. The union members have an interest in the plant staying open and should he able to use their numbers as leverage for a decent share of the profits. The government on the other hand never goes out of business.
None of this should be interpreted as me disagreeing with your remarks on how public perception of the police also play a role in enabling the situation we have with law enforcement. The unions are a part, deferential courts and legal precedents are a part, politicians are a part, our culture is a part....
No one likes to say it because conservatives are generally extremely deferential to law enforcement and progressives are generally pro union but it illustrates the worst aspects of collective bargaining in the public sector. The interests of the union members can end up winning out over the interests of the public at large and result in terrible policy outcomes.
This is anecdotal and I'd imagine certification varies agency to agency and location to location. That said I had a room mate who was in law enforcement and I was surprised how rarely he trained with his service weapon. I'm a casual shooter (I make it to the range on average every month to month and a half) and I found that I shoot much more frequently than he did. Just because police carry weapons doesn't mean they're particularly adept at using them. It takes practice and it's a skill you need to maintain if you want to be a consistently good shot.
We'll find out soon enough. Munich police are setting up a site for people to upload any video to look for clues. I haven't seen anything in the German press yet about identified suspects.
That is certainly possible. That said there was a similar case in AZ earlier in the year where an unarmed guy was shot and killed by police while laying down with his hands up and begging for his life. The victim was white so it got a bit less attention but the officer was charged. As we all know that in itself doesn't guarantee a just outcome but I think the state's attorney will find it hard not to at least go through the motions seeing as how this was caught on video.
There are plenty of ways to appear to take it seriously with the knowledge that there will be no indictment
The implication of the article is that, because public entities who conduct anti-tobacco research are funded by tobacco taxes and settlements, they have an interest in people not switching to smokeless alternatives. It creates an alliance of the entrenched interests and the puritans. Its the worst of all worlds.
Regarding e-cigs, why is it that our society manages to turns everything into an entrenched interest? Combined with the various strains of modern puritanism out there it's no wonder we can't get to a better, even if imperfect, place for public health.
I think its less culture war and more normal course of consumerism. What you buy isn't only about the qualities of the product itself, it's what your choice in that purchase says about you as an person. Maybe it's becoming more pervasive but I don't think it's exactly a new phenomenon. The introduction of social justice politics and social media into the mix maybe gives it a nastier tone.
You're absolutely right that everything can't be reduced to economics and Brexit illustrates where believing it does can fail so massively. The biggest mistake the EU makes is trying to paper over the difference between being a German and a Greek or Romanian and a Swede. This isn't to say economics don't matter (they absolutely do) but it takes more than removing trade barriers for governing institutions to earn legitimacy.
Because people on this side of the border finance it, live by its laws, and die for it if it tells them to. They do all of these things because they (at least in theory in a Western democracy) have a say in how its run. As long as the nation-state in its current paradigm remains the primary political entity on this planet then its duty will be first and foremost to its citizens. When that ceases to be the case (or even when it's perceived to cease to be the case) it loses legitimacy and rightly so.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Morning Ed: Labor {2016.07.27.W}”
That's not true unless the contract required the company to take some tangible action or pay for something. Maybe if there is a real quid pro quo (you don't quit and we pay for your college/masters/certification) that might be the case but that's a different discussion.
"
First no one is saying society should intervene. The question is should a court enforce it if asked. Second, if your opinion is that courts should prioritize enforcing non-compete agreements over all other considerations then fair enough but I'd say that's pretty myopic both about the realities of the world and how the law works.
"
I think the investment stuff is a nice little piece of BS put together by the company's legal and/or marketing office to avoid calling this what it is which is a non-compete. There are certain instances where a person provides a highly specialized skill or is in a position to poach personnel or a client base where thats reasonable but for the policy reasons stated above (as well as just plain old fairness in our economic system) I don't think they ever are for run of the mill employees, middle management, etc.
"
You're too focused on the individual circumstances. Again, imagine this applied on a macro level where leaving one non-specialist job for a better non-specialist job is penalized (potentially ruinously). Would we be encouraging a mobile workforce that climbs or a sclerotic workforce where people are stuck where they are? Are we encouraging employer-employee litigation or minimizing it? Are we creating more bankrupt people or fewer? Are we encouraging productivity or discouraging it because people are trapped?
This isn't about whether or not she is sympathetic and it's why there's more to contract and employment law than 'well the fool signed the dotted line so that's that.'
"
On Rieves I think there are sound public policy reasons not to enforce a contract like that. Imagine if every company required it. It would create arbitrary restrictons on the movement of human capital that could hurt economic growth and people's ability to get ahead, earn more, and engage in economic activity. In many ways it's the same as the type of regulations that the French have that lock up the labor market, it just favors the employer instead of the employee.
"
I think the bigger questions is whether raising the minimum wage is really a solution to that problem. There are alternatives.
"
Assuming unions in the United States haven't already crossed the line into irreversible decline I think your proposal might give them a new lease on life. The challenge I think would be finding a way to fund the union in a way that workers could live with even with the knowledge that they could still be fired or laid off.
On “Morning Ed: World {2017.07.26.T}”
On Syria I think there's a serious question as to what we really can do to help. Also note that this is being published by a rebel organization that if I had to guess wants more military assistance from the West. I don't think that Syria's children will benefit much from America giving more weapons to random militants in the desert or dropping more ordnance.
On “Briefly, On Charles Kinsey Having Been Shot”
I think the intent probably depends on the officer but I'm not sure it matters. The system is so full of bad incentives that I think it can cause even well-meaning, regular people to use excessive force. The protection from consequences is itself only part of a bigger web of bad policy (quota based policing, over-criminalization) and cultural problems (thin blue line).
"
@mike-dwyer I think it's completely fair to ask if there aren't other professions where we should be asking these questions. That said I can't think of any other profession out there that are as protected from accountability as the police. Graham v. Connor, while sounding reasonable enough in print, has resulted in extreme deference to the decision of officers on the scene. Combine that with qualified immunity, powerful unions, toothless civilian oversight boards, LEO bill of rights, and a siege mentality that keeps the police from telling on each other and citizens revering the thin blue line and we get to a place where it's hard to hold the police accountable for even the most outrageous conduct.
I mean, the only place I can think of where it might be more difficult to discipline someone for on the job activity is a sitting chief executive (president, governor, mayor etc.) and at least they have to face the voters periodically.
"
I think you're alluding to this but the cameras themselves, while helpful in some situations I don't think are necessarily the panacea people think they are. In addition to making sure they're used appropriately, cameras can allow the officer to become the director of how things appear on screen. It's quite possible to record incidents in a manner that presents a misleading picture of the encounter. Absent additional reform I see no reason to think that law enforcement wouldn't get pretty good at choreographing scenes in ways that are favorable to their perspective.
"
@kazzy the public school teacher union issue I think is extremely difficult. My opinion is that the problems we have with education in this country don't really stem from incompetent teachers (not that they don't exist). They stem from the fact that we expect the public education system to solve all kinds of profound socioeconomic problems that we're unwilling to address comprehensively. I think it might be easier to dissolve teachers unions if we didn't expect teachers in poor jurisdictions to be miracle workers or hold them responsible for the failure of students arising from issues teachers can't control. Unfortunately we've spent so much time convincing ourselves that education alone is enough.
"
I probably fall in a weird place on the scale. I support ending all public sector unions because I think they inherently create a new constituency for the government to serve when by its nature the government should serve everyone equally. Improvements in public policy shouldn't be frustrated because it isnt in the interest of some some group of government employees. The public good should always win out.
I'm much more sympathetic to unions in the private sector. The union members have an interest in the plant staying open and should he able to use their numbers as leverage for a decent share of the profits. The government on the other hand never goes out of business.
None of this should be interpreted as me disagreeing with your remarks on how public perception of the police also play a role in enabling the situation we have with law enforcement. The unions are a part, deferential courts and legal precedents are a part, politicians are a part, our culture is a part....
"
No one likes to say it because conservatives are generally extremely deferential to law enforcement and progressives are generally pro union but it illustrates the worst aspects of collective bargaining in the public sector. The interests of the union members can end up winning out over the interests of the public at large and result in terrible policy outcomes.
"
This is anecdotal and I'd imagine certification varies agency to agency and location to location. That said I had a room mate who was in law enforcement and I was surprised how rarely he trained with his service weapon. I'm a casual shooter (I make it to the range on average every month to month and a half) and I found that I shoot much more frequently than he did. Just because police carry weapons doesn't mean they're particularly adept at using them. It takes practice and it's a skill you need to maintain if you want to be a consistently good shot.
"
It's all about the new professionalism.
On “Linky Friday #176: Eggheadery”
We'll find out soon enough. Munich police are setting up a site for people to upload any video to look for clues. I haven't seen anything in the German press yet about identified suspects.
http://mobile.scribblelive.com/Event/Schusse_in_Munchen_im_OEZ/?Theme=13112
Edit: They appear have upped the death toll from 6 to at least 8.
On “Morning Ed: Health {2016.07.21.Th}”
I think that's a pretty common sentiment, at least in the middle class and above enclaves of blue America.
On “CNN: Man shot by cops while lying down with hands up, lawyer says [+Video]”
I'd heard about that as well. We're also in agreement about what the minimum outcome should be.
"
That is certainly possible. That said there was a similar case in AZ earlier in the year where an unarmed guy was shot and killed by police while laying down with his hands up and begging for his life. The victim was white so it got a bit less attention but the officer was charged. As we all know that in itself doesn't guarantee a just outcome but I think the state's attorney will find it hard not to at least go through the motions seeing as how this was caught on video.
There are plenty of ways to appear to take it seriously with the knowledge that there will be no indictment
On “Morning Ed: Health {2016.07.21.Th}”
The implication of the article is that, because public entities who conduct anti-tobacco research are funded by tobacco taxes and settlements, they have an interest in people not switching to smokeless alternatives. It creates an alliance of the entrenched interests and the puritans. Its the worst of all worlds.
"
Regarding e-cigs, why is it that our society manages to turns everything into an entrenched interest? Combined with the various strains of modern puritanism out there it's no wonder we can't get to a better, even if imperfect, place for public health.
On “Morning Ed: Society {2016.07.20.W}”
I think its less culture war and more normal course of consumerism. What you buy isn't only about the qualities of the product itself, it's what your choice in that purchase says about you as an person. Maybe it's becoming more pervasive but I don't think it's exactly a new phenomenon. The introduction of social justice politics and social media into the mix maybe gives it a nastier tone.
On “How Brexit Turned Into an Immigrant’s Nightmare”
You're absolutely right that everything can't be reduced to economics and Brexit illustrates where believing it does can fail so massively. The biggest mistake the EU makes is trying to paper over the difference between being a German and a Greek or Romanian and a Swede. This isn't to say economics don't matter (they absolutely do) but it takes more than removing trade barriers for governing institutions to earn legitimacy.
"
Because people on this side of the border finance it, live by its laws, and die for it if it tells them to. They do all of these things because they (at least in theory in a Western democracy) have a say in how its run. As long as the nation-state in its current paradigm remains the primary political entity on this planet then its duty will be first and foremost to its citizens. When that ceases to be the case (or even when it's perceived to cease to be the case) it loses legitimacy and rightly so.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.