Having problems registering on Coin Return? Please email support@coin-return.org, and include your PA username and PIN.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.

Join us in the [Anime] thread to end all [Anime] threads

1110911101112111411151243

Posts

  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Aioua wrote: »
    Yeah, well, too bad i guess.

    Better offer your sales people competitive pay and actually reward their loyalty if you don't want them jumping ship.

    This encourages nakedly anti-competitive behavior and creates massive barriers to entry for new firms.

    Anzekay on
  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Thawmus wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Thawmus wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Thawmus wrote: »
    never die wrote: »
    In terms of justifications besides the obvious employers want to control you and not allow employees to move on; isn’t the logic supposed to be to protect you from sharing trade secrets from one company to another? Which seems redundant in this day and age of NDAs.

    The one I'm most familiar with is that if you have a salesperson and they're really fucking good at sales and they build up a massive client list, you really don't want them to go somewhere else and take their client list with them, and you definitely don't want to see them go create their own company and take their client list with them.

    Of course, if you don't want them to go you should make them fucking happy and the reality is that the non-compete is there to try and extract the salesperson's value from them if they exit the company.

    You'll notice that nobody sneezes or gets uptight about absorbing a smaller company so they get to dig into that smaller company's clientele or hire someone on who's been working for themselves so that they can absorb their clientele. Everyone's more than willing to assign a value to people who have client lists like this, so finding ways to keep what you bought without paying for it will always sound like a win.

    It's worth noting that in this case you could just force them to sign a non-solicit, which is completely reasonable and not something covered by this rule change.

    A non-solicit is still bullshit. It's still trying to extricate the worker from the thing that makes them valuable so that they have no value if they choose to leave (and you know their new employer was counting on clients being carried over if they gave a good offer). While, simultaneously, recognizing that value if they're running solo and you make them an offer.

    If someone's leaving and you want to keep their clients, you get your next best person on that client list and try to keep them. That's the fucking game, so play it. If you can't play it, then that person who just left should have been given an offer they couldn't refuse.

    Non-solicits are just another way to try and use our legal system to bind workers and not their employers.

    What you're missing is that a non-solicit also protects that next-best salesman by preventing me from using perfect knowledge of existing contracts/bids to undercut my previous employer. New employers are going to require you to disclose any non-compete/non-solicits as part of the hiring process anyway, and most are going to be okay with you burning a year working new leads until you can circle back to your old clients when it's time to rebid.

    Nothing's being missed!

    If you can undercut your previous employer, fucking go for it, fuck'em.

    If you let someone that valuable go, and it bites you in the ass, that's just tough shit.

    "Someone that valuable" is "literally any salesman," not SVPs or whatever

    This is not viable, and people *in sales* typically don't even mind reasonably-timed non-solicits because they understand it protects them as well

    Blanket, indefinite non-solicits aren't really a thing

    Anzekay on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Thawmus wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Thawmus wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Thawmus wrote: »
    never die wrote: »
    In terms of justifications besides the obvious employers want to control you and not allow employees to move on; isn’t the logic supposed to be to protect you from sharing trade secrets from one company to another? Which seems redundant in this day and age of NDAs.

    The one I'm most familiar with is that if you have a salesperson and they're really fucking good at sales and they build up a massive client list, you really don't want them to go somewhere else and take their client list with them, and you definitely don't want to see them go create their own company and take their client list with them.

    Of course, if you don't want them to go you should make them fucking happy and the reality is that the non-compete is there to try and extract the salesperson's value from them if they exit the company.

    You'll notice that nobody sneezes or gets uptight about absorbing a smaller company so they get to dig into that smaller company's clientele or hire someone on who's been working for themselves so that they can absorb their clientele. Everyone's more than willing to assign a value to people who have client lists like this, so finding ways to keep what you bought without paying for it will always sound like a win.

    It's worth noting that in this case you could just force them to sign a non-solicit, which is completely reasonable and not something covered by this rule change.

    A non-solicit is still bullshit. It's still trying to extricate the worker from the thing that makes them valuable so that they have no value if they choose to leave (and you know their new employer was counting on clients being carried over if they gave a good offer). While, simultaneously, recognizing that value if they're running solo and you make them an offer.

    If someone's leaving and you want to keep their clients, you get your next best person on that client list and try to keep them. That's the fucking game, so play it. If you can't play it, then that person who just left should have been given an offer they couldn't refuse.

    Non-solicits are just another way to try and use our legal system to bind workers and not their employers.

    What you're missing is that a non-solicit also protects that next-best salesman by preventing me from using perfect knowledge of existing contracts/bids to undercut my previous employer. New employers are going to require you to disclose any non-compete/non-solicits as part of the hiring process anyway, and most are going to be okay with you burning a year working new leads until you can circle back to your old clients when it's time to rebid.

    Nothing's being missed!

    If you can undercut your previous employer, fucking go for it, fuck'em.

    If you let someone that valuable go, and it bites you in the ass, that's just tough shit.

    The information is valuable, the employee(to the competitor) isn't. This should be obvious in that the first person to 'defect' is worth a huge amount of money and every subsequent person is worth much much less. Worst sales person or best sales person almost makes no difference.

    Frankly no one person is as valuable as some contracts are. A new jet like a 737 is 250-500m dollars, and maybe 15% margin. What's the correct compensation for Airbus to pay to get a Boeing sales person or vice versa on a RFQ for 20 of them? Is it worth paying $50m for information that lets you win a contract worth 750m in profits, definitely!

    But, I have a hard time believing that you think a sales person should make $50m dollars. And in such a scenario a competitor can always offer a chunk of their margin to get that 'defector' that if it were given to the entire sales team could easily exceed 100%.

    And really if I hire someone away from a competitor at a ridiculous salary to win one bid, a "hire" and "paid industrial espionage" start looking a lot a like.

    Anzekay on
  • aiouaaioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    edited April 14
    Non-disclosure is different from a non-solicit, and i don't think anybody is upset about those.

    This puts the onus on the jilted company to sue and attempt to prove covered information was used by the new company though, instead of just barring the employee from working.

    Doesn't seem like a problem. If you as a company don't want a discovery flashlight all the way up your keister you probably won't hire your competitor's top salesperson right before swooping in to undercut their bid.

    Anzekay on
    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited April 14
    Thawmus wrote: »
    I'm trying to understand, in this scenario, who is the one harmed that I should give a fuck about?

    Boeing? Airbus?

    The horror.

    This is the arena that they have constructed and then they wanted rules that protect them and not their employees. So that they can suppress their wages and make the labor market uncompetitive. Weird that we care about competition but only when it comes to goods and not people's livelihoods.

    If a single salesperson going from Boeing to Airbus guarantees that a $750M contract is going to switch from Boeing to Airbus, then Boeing has fucked up so completely and utterly on so many levels that not having a non-solicit doesn't even enter into it.

    If I'm switching my $750M contract for planes from one manufacturer to the other simply because Jenny, the salesperson I'm working with, is moving from Boeing to Airbus, there's a lot more going on. And if for some reason she is going to move the sale from one company to another all on her lonesome, yes, actually, she should get her cut, and $50M sounds fair.

    In the meantime, if Boeing wanted to keep my business they could fucking work for it.

    I'm not hearing what's uncompetitive about this outside of people just saying it is.

    Should be obvious. If the companies doing it directly share the information, that's collusion, and that's illegal because it artificially increase costs, in particular for government contracts, but also in general.

    Anzekay on
  • MilskiMilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    The point they are making is not "the single salesman is worth a $750M contract", the point is "the single salesman knows enough to about one company to ensure the other company can win the bidding process."

    This is uncompetitive because a bidding process in which one company isn't blind and the other ones are is unfair and has a lot of negative incentives attached, including the cost of information poaching being passed downstream and a greater risk of shaving bids in unrealistic ways. E: As noted above, its also a way for companies to indirectly collude, which can also result in companies increasing their bid unnecessarily.

    Now, this situation is pretty specific to being in a position where you're involved in the bidding process for high value contracts, and I wouldn't say that it justifies non-competes so much as it justifies being paid to sit on a beach for X period of time before you can work for a competitor, but its not really a situation in which you can just pay employees more to solve it, because at some point employees will have information about contract bidding for dollar values way, way, way more than they're getting paid.

    Anzekay on
    I ate an engineer
  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Thawmus wrote: »
    I'm trying to understand, in this scenario, who is the one harmed that I should give a fuck about?

    Boeing? Airbus?

    The horror.

    This is the arena that they have constructed and then they wanted rules that protect them and not their employees. So that they can suppress their wages and make the labor market uncompetitive. Weird that we care about competition but only when it comes to goods and not people's livelihoods.

    If a single salesperson going from Boeing to Airbus guarantees that a $750M contract is going to switch from Boeing to Airbus, then Boeing has fucked up so completely and utterly on so many levels that not having a non-solicit doesn't even enter into it.

    If I'm switching my $750M contract for planes from one manufacturer to the other simply because Jenny, the salesperson I'm working with, is moving from Boeing to Airbus, there's a lot more going on. And if for some reason she is going to move the sale from one company to another all on her lonesome, yes, actually, she should get her cut, and $50M sounds fair.

    In the meantime, if Boeing wanted to keep my business they could fucking work for it.

    I'm not hearing what's uncompetitive about this outside of people just saying it is.

    You didn't swap manufacturers because Jenny changed employers and you really like Jenny, you swapped manufacturers because Jenny has insight into the bid process already going on and knows to a high degree of certainly what Boeing's bid is likely to be and accordingly offers you a comparable product at $700m instead of $750m, because Jenny wants her goddamn commission and understands that 2% of $0 is $0 and will accordingly accept a lower margin

    This is the case for much smaller, lower-value bids as well, not just 7+ figure capital contracts

    Anzekay on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 14
    It's honestly kind of funny how much our economy is built on information monopolization.

    Anzekay on
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    milski wrote: »
    The point they are making is not "the single salesman is worth a $750M contract", the point is "the single salesman knows enough to about one company to ensure the other company can win the bidding process."

    This is uncompetitive because a bidding process in which one company isn't blind and the other ones are is unfair and has a lot of negative incentives attached, including the cost of information poaching being passed downstream and a greater risk of shaving bids in unrealistic ways. E: As noted above, its also a way for companies to indirectly collude, which can also result in companies increasing their bid unnecessarily.

    Now, this situation is pretty specific to being in a position where you're involved in the bidding process for high value contracts, and I wouldn't say that it justifies non-competes so much as it justifies being paid to sit on a beach for X period of time before you can work for a competitor, but its not really a situation in which you can just pay employees more to solve it, because at some point employees will have information about contract bidding for dollar values way, way, way more than they're getting paid.

    No one is missing that. We are saying that is a problem with disclosure of information. NDAs and trade secrets are not being taken away.

    Anzekay on
  • MilskiMilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    The point they are making is not "the single salesman is worth a $750M contract", the point is "the single salesman knows enough to about one company to ensure the other company can win the bidding process."

    This is uncompetitive because a bidding process in which one company isn't blind and the other ones are is unfair and has a lot of negative incentives attached, including the cost of information poaching being passed downstream and a greater risk of shaving bids in unrealistic ways. E: As noted above, its also a way for companies to indirectly collude, which can also result in companies increasing their bid unnecessarily.

    Now, this situation is pretty specific to being in a position where you're involved in the bidding process for high value contracts, and I wouldn't say that it justifies non-competes so much as it justifies being paid to sit on a beach for X period of time before you can work for a competitor, but its not really a situation in which you can just pay employees more to solve it, because at some point employees will have information about contract bidding for dollar values way, way, way more than they're getting paid.

    No one is missing that. We are saying that is a problem with disclosure of information. NDAs and trade secrets are not being taken away.

    I mean, Thawmus is pretty explicitly talking about a situation in which the company is changing entirely due to a single salesperson, so "nobody is missing that" seems inaccurate. At minimum, it doesn't seem like they believe its possible that perfect information about a competitors bid could be delivered by a single person and flip the bid, or believes that information would justify paying every sales person a huge fraction of the bid price as a method of keeping them around, both of which seem questionable.

    Anzekay on
    I ate an engineer
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Thawmus wrote: »
    I'm trying to understand, in this scenario, who is the one harmed that I should give a fuck about?

    Boeing? Airbus?

    The horror.

    This is the arena that they have constructed and then they wanted rules that protect them and not their employees. So that they can suppress their wages and make the labor market uncompetitive. Weird that we care about competition but only when it comes to goods and not people's livelihoods.

    If a single salesperson going from Boeing to Airbus guarantees that a $750M contract is going to switch from Boeing to Airbus, then Boeing has fucked up so completely and utterly on so many levels that not having a non-solicit doesn't even enter into it.

    If I'm switching my $750M contract for planes from one manufacturer to the other simply because Jenny, the salesperson I'm working with, is moving from Boeing to Airbus, there's a lot more going on. And if for some reason she is going to move the sale from one company to another all on her lonesome, yes, actually, she should get her cut, and $50M sounds fair.

    In the meantime, if Boeing wanted to keep my business they could fucking work for it.

    I'm not hearing what's uncompetitive about this outside of people just saying it is.

    You aren't switching because Jenny is working on it, you've never met Jenny. In the most extreme case; you are selecting the Airbus tender because Boeing's bids was 9 billion dollars, and Airbus's would have been 9.2b, except that when Jenny went over to Airbus she told them to go with $8,999,999,999 instead. So now Airbus only makes $500m on the sale, they give Jenny a "go retire" amount of cash and all the sales people at Boeing don't get their commissions. And Boeing does some layoffs, because they couldn't afford to pay 10% of the profits to each of the dozens of members of the sales team.

    That sounds crazy, and planes are a bit unique, but some of our customers are municipalities, and they are by law required to go with the lowest qualified(satisfies tech requirements, company has relevant experience, etc) bid. We've won bids on like .01% difference in final bid price. The rounds of beers after work cost more than the difference in the bids.


    e: Or as a counter point, Airbus would have bid 8.7b, but thanks to Jenny grabs the extra few hundred million cause it was right there for the taking.

    Anzekay on
  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Aioua wrote: »
    Non-disclosure is different from a non-solicit, and i don't think anybody is upset about those.

    This puts the onus on the jilted company to sue and attempt to prove covered information was used by the new company though, instead of just barring the employee from working.

    Doesn't seem like a problem. If you as a company don't want a discovery flashlight all the way up your keister you probably won't hire your competitor's top salesperson right before swooping in to undercut their bid.

    Unless you are an absolute moron proving this sort of thing in court is going to be literally impossible

    Anzekay on
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    milski wrote: »
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    The point they are making is not "the single salesman is worth a $750M contract", the point is "the single salesman knows enough to about one company to ensure the other company can win the bidding process."

    This is uncompetitive because a bidding process in which one company isn't blind and the other ones are is unfair and has a lot of negative incentives attached, including the cost of information poaching being passed downstream and a greater risk of shaving bids in unrealistic ways. E: As noted above, its also a way for companies to indirectly collude, which can also result in companies increasing their bid unnecessarily.

    Now, this situation is pretty specific to being in a position where you're involved in the bidding process for high value contracts, and I wouldn't say that it justifies non-competes so much as it justifies being paid to sit on a beach for X period of time before you can work for a competitor, but its not really a situation in which you can just pay employees more to solve it, because at some point employees will have information about contract bidding for dollar values way, way, way more than they're getting paid.

    No one is missing that. We are saying that is a problem with disclosure of information. NDAs and trade secrets are not being taken away.

    I mean, Thawmus is pretty explicitly talking about a situation in which the company is changing entirely due to a single salesperson, so "nobody is missing that" seems inaccurate. At minimum, it doesn't seem like they believe its possible that perfect information about a competitors bid could be delivered by a single person and flip the bid, or believes that information would justify paying every sales person a huge fraction of the bid price as a method of keeping them around, both of which seem questionable.

    If the sales person is the primary reason you got that contract then no it is not questionable. They earned that. If the sole reason a contract moves is the sales person then that sales person is clearly worth some significant fraction of $750m. If they are doing it with insider information then NDAs/trade secrets like I said.

    Anzekay on
  • MilskiMilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Like, to be clear, in general non-competes are stupid, and in the cases where non-competes make sense, they should probably be obligated to pay you to sit around and not compete.* But in the specific area of bidding, especially government bidding, there are strong incentives to defecting that make some form of law or binding legal agreement against colluding or selling information enforceable, and the values at play can make "just pay employees better" infeasible, so yeah, have go-sit-on-a-beach noncompetes along with the legal regulations.

    *For executives, I can see an argument that whatever compensation package is negotiated with an understanding that if they get fired for performance or whatever, that's it, they're cooked.

    Anzekay on
    I ate an engineer
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    milski wrote: »
    Like, to be clear, in general non-competes are stupid, and in the cases where non-competes make sense, they should probably be obligated to pay you to sit around and not compete.* But in the specific area of bidding, especially government bidding, there are strong incentives to defecting that make some form of law or binding legal agreement against colluding or selling information enforceable, and the values at play can make "just pay employees better" infeasible, so yeah, have go-sit-on-a-beach noncompetes along with the legal regulations.

    *For executives, I can see an argument that whatever compensation package is negotiated with an understanding that if they get fired for performance or whatever, that's it, they're cooked.

    We have those laws! NDA, trade secrets, and price fixing stuff all comes into play. What you describe in the beginning is the reality for a lot of the world. Look up the term Garden Leave I think. That requires giving contracts to employees that the employer is also bound by. No one is objecting to that. It would just be a sea change in the current working world in America. The reason it isn't done is it would almost exclusively benefit workers.

    Anzekay on
  • MilskiMilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    The point they are making is not "the single salesman is worth a $750M contract", the point is "the single salesman knows enough to about one company to ensure the other company can win the bidding process."

    This is uncompetitive because a bidding process in which one company isn't blind and the other ones are is unfair and has a lot of negative incentives attached, including the cost of information poaching being passed downstream and a greater risk of shaving bids in unrealistic ways. E: As noted above, its also a way for companies to indirectly collude, which can also result in companies increasing their bid unnecessarily.

    Now, this situation is pretty specific to being in a position where you're involved in the bidding process for high value contracts, and I wouldn't say that it justifies non-competes so much as it justifies being paid to sit on a beach for X period of time before you can work for a competitor, but its not really a situation in which you can just pay employees more to solve it, because at some point employees will have information about contract bidding for dollar values way, way, way more than they're getting paid.

    No one is missing that. We are saying that is a problem with disclosure of information. NDAs and trade secrets are not being taken away.

    I mean, Thawmus is pretty explicitly talking about a situation in which the company is changing entirely due to a single salesperson, so "nobody is missing that" seems inaccurate. At minimum, it doesn't seem like they believe its possible that perfect information about a competitors bid could be delivered by a single person and flip the bid, or believes that information would justify paying every sales person a huge fraction of the bid price as a method of keeping them around, both of which seem questionable.

    If the sales person is the primary reason you got that contract then no it is not questionable. They earned that. If the sole reason a contract moves is the sales person then that sales person is clearly worth some significant fraction of $750m. If they are doing it with insider information then NDAs/trade secrets like I said.

    This is getting into semantics to the point of not really meaning anything, but if somebody shouldn't be able to do something due to NDAs or trade secret law then I wouldn't say they "earned" the commission for selling those and don't find a get-paid-to-noncompete problematic in that instance; the noncompete is just making it so that it's much easier to prove/limit things than requiring direct proof of selling information.

    Anzekay on
    I ate an engineer
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Ok so there is a conception that non-solicits increase value to Boeing et al. And that absent them bids would be lower. This is backwards.

    Boeing hires Jenny from airbus. Jenny knows that airbus’s bid is 750m on the dot. And so Jenny can tailor Boeings bid to be as close to Airbus’s bid but just under. This definitely hurts airbus but it also hurts the airline and so increases airfare. This is because Boeing isn’t going to bid under cost. They want to place their bid to be as high as possible but still lower than airbus. As a result. Boeing would have bid 700m but instead bids 749m. This wins Boeing 49 million dollars of profit and costs the airlines 49 million

    Anzekay on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    milski wrote: »
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    The point they are making is not "the single salesman is worth a $750M contract", the point is "the single salesman knows enough to about one company to ensure the other company can win the bidding process."

    This is uncompetitive because a bidding process in which one company isn't blind and the other ones are is unfair and has a lot of negative incentives attached, including the cost of information poaching being passed downstream and a greater risk of shaving bids in unrealistic ways. E: As noted above, its also a way for companies to indirectly collude, which can also result in companies increasing their bid unnecessarily.

    Now, this situation is pretty specific to being in a position where you're involved in the bidding process for high value contracts, and I wouldn't say that it justifies non-competes so much as it justifies being paid to sit on a beach for X period of time before you can work for a competitor, but its not really a situation in which you can just pay employees more to solve it, because at some point employees will have information about contract bidding for dollar values way, way, way more than they're getting paid.

    No one is missing that. We are saying that is a problem with disclosure of information. NDAs and trade secrets are not being taken away.

    I mean, Thawmus is pretty explicitly talking about a situation in which the company is changing entirely due to a single salesperson, so "nobody is missing that" seems inaccurate. At minimum, it doesn't seem like they believe its possible that perfect information about a competitors bid could be delivered by a single person and flip the bid, or believes that information would justify paying every sales person a huge fraction of the bid price as a method of keeping them around, both of which seem questionable.

    If the sales person is the primary reason you got that contract then no it is not questionable. They earned that. If the sole reason a contract moves is the sales person then that sales person is clearly worth some significant fraction of $750m. If they are doing it with insider information then NDAs/trade secrets like I said.

    This is getting into semantics to the point of not really meaning anything, but if somebody shouldn't be able to do something due to NDAs or trade secret law then I wouldn't say they "earned" the commission for selling those and don't find a get-paid-to-noncompete problematic in that instance; the noncompete is just making it so that it's much easier to prove/limit things than requiring direct proof of selling information.

    You are right, and no one is saying they should. That is on the extremely well paid lawyers of those companies to sort out. If they don't want to do that then they need to offer actual work contracts to employees that offers benefits to both sides. 3 months notice of separation where you will be paid the average rate from your last x months solves the problem quite nicely. The employee gets the security of knowing they have time to look for jobs while being paid, and the company has the benefit of knowing their employee can't be poached at a moment's notice. This is a legal option available to them right now. If they choose not to use it then that is on them.

    Anzekay on
  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Ok so there is a conception that non-solicits increase value to Boeing et al. And that absent them bids would be lower. This is backwards.

    Boeing hires Jenny from airbus. Jenny knows that airbus’s bid is 750m on the dot. And so Jenny can tailor Boeings bid to be as close to Airbus’s bid but just under. This definitely hurts airbus but it also hurts the airline and so increases airfare. This is because Boeing isn’t going to bid under cost. They want to place their bid to be as high as possible but still lower than airbus. As a result. Boeing would have bid 700m but instead bids 749m. This wins Boeing 49 million dollars of profit and costs the airlines 49 million

    I mean this is situational but yes this is obviously also a possibility

    Anzekay on
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt Stepped in it Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Also, generally what happens in situations where that can occur, the hiring company squeezes the employee for all their worth for a year or two and then dumps them, having extracted way more benefit from the person than it cost the company. Which doesn't seem like a great environment for the workers either.

    Anzekay on
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    edited April 14
    In the made up Boeing/Airbus example, Boeing could never pay it's employees enough to prevent Airbus from being able to poach them. Boening probably has dozens if not hundreds of individuals involved in the negotiations, and Airbus only needs to poach one of those to get the competitive advantage they are looking for. This is a case, however, where non-disclosure agreements come into play. And it would be entirely possible to show in court that Airbus didn't undercut Boeing by a trivial amount until after they hired the former boeing employee. Revealing contract details to a competitor certainly falls under disclosure laws.

    It is also worth looking at industries that don't have non-competes in place, because I bet those are quite often where collusion between businesses happens due to exchange of employees, resulting in oligarchies.

    Anzekay on
  • never dienever die Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    All of this doesn’t require a non-compete or anything, that’s what NDAs are for.

    Anzekay on
  • LarsLars Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Today's chapter of Marriagetoxin:
    Ever receive a new quest, only to find out you already did all the objectives?

    Anzekay on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] regular
    edited April 14
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    Anzekay on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Frieren 130:
    Last chapter before the hiatus, so let's see what cliffhanger they're leaving us on.

    Chapter splash page: Frieren awake while Fern sleeps. That's not good.

    We wind up tying up some loose threads from the El Dorado/Macht of the Golden Land arc, with Lord Gluck's interrogation. Looks like there's political concerns as well, as they're trying to spin it as him being deceived, but Gluck's having none of it. Good on him, and we get to see where Denken gets his own will and morals from.

    Speaking of the old fox, we see him conversing with the one Magic Special Forces officer who was tracking Ubel and Land, and it's clear they're well acquainted - not surprising given Denken is an Imperial Magister. Though he notes that being a first class mage as well has his loyalties in question on both sides, limiting what he can do.

    Apparently we have another player on the field - the head of the Magic Special Forces, Frase. And from Gluck's response of "I should have let Macht kill her", it sounds like she's Bad News.

    Today's Lesser Known Sign Of The Apocalypse: Frieren awake and dressed in the morning.

    Anzekay on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] regular
    edited April 14
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    Anzekay on
  • AtomicTofuAtomicTofu She's a straight-up supervillain, yo Registered User regular
    edited April 14

    We proudly announce that animation Angel’s Egg will be remastered in 4K under the supervision of director Mamoru Oshii. Please look forward to the completion in 2025 for its 40th anniversary.

    Anzekay on
  • BahamutZEROBahamutZERO Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    oh shit
    Angel's Egg is visually amazing as hell, a visual tour de force of Yoshitaka Amano's illustrations, but I could not begin to tell you what it's about. It is utterly surreal and mystifying. It's quite a watch.
    dhlzpzqpj0q9.png

    0gi2vp5y73so.png

    Anzekay on
    BahamutZERO.gif
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    edited April 14
    So Black Butler is back with another season, but I noticed Crunchyroll also has the movie of the previous arc available, but only the Dub.

    Does anyone know who streams the Sub? My Google is failing me.

    Anzekay on
  • KyouguKyougu Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    JJK manga leaks
    Todo is back?!

    Anzekay on
  • LarsLars Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    The second OP for Delicious in Dungeon had been sounding familiar, and I was sure I'd heard the band somewhere else before. I wasn't able to place exactly where, so I ended up having to google it.

    Anzekay on
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    edited April 14
    Dungeon Meshi 19

    E: nope, I was completely wrong. My ears are off.

    Anzekay on
  • edited April 14
    This content has been removed.

  • Moth 13Moth 13 Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    For all my criticisms of JJK's final boss, I will say it's still been way more enjoyable than Demon Slayer's final boss.

    Anzekay on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] regular
    edited April 14
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    Anzekay on
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    Demon Slayer's final boss might be a let down but I kinda like how it all ends anyways.

    Anzekay on
  • cj iwakuracj iwakura The Rhythm Regent Bears The Name FreedomRegistered User regular
    edited April 14
    At this rate, JJK's 'final boss' will probably be an entire two-cour season.

    Anzekay on
    z48g7weaopj2.png
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] regular
    edited April 14
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    Anzekay on
  • PiptheFairPiptheFair Frequently not in boats. Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    the final 'fight' aka mah jong game in Akagi took over 200 chapters and like 20 years

    also luffy vs. katakuri was 2 episodes more than goku vs. frieza

    Anzekay on
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited April 14
    I’m guessing the record is for the actual run time of the fight itself, and not the episode count.

    A lot of One Piece fights later in the series will cut away from the fight frequently to show what other characters are doing.

    Anzekay on
Sign In or Register to comment.