- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:15 pm to stout
I hopped on FB to look at marketplace and one of the first posts I saw before I clicked:
quote:
looking for a job in the moss bluff area preferably an employer who pays $9+
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
looking for a job in the moss bluff area preferably an employer who pays $9+
Low standards there. Do you think they will sign an NC?
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:17 pm to BeepNode
quote:
Both increase freedom of the individual worker
No, like anything else, there are trade-offs and opportunity costs.
Under your logic, being a batista at Starbucks would be one if the freest jobs their is. Earning more $ equals more financial freedom, and companies requiring non-compete or anti-union clauses often pay more
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I wouldn't hire about half the judges I've gone in front of to be an associate attorney at my shitty firm.
Just goes to show that you don't need to be a subject matter expert to win an election.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:23 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Are you serious?
Serious as arse cancer. Are you really one of those people who thinks there’s nothing going on beyond NOLA and BR? I thought those people were just a myth. Is it real?? And is there not a possibility that elsewhere in the state there may actually be districts and perhaps even “regions” where the judiciary is fine?
This post was edited on 1/8/23 at 4:25 pm
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:25 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
This is what they “benefit” more than likely anything else.
Correct- it doesn’t matter ultimately whether they are fair or enforceable, so long as the employee has to pay to litigate- the contract enforces itself.
I can understand the desire to include them as an employer, but I have some real concerns about whether them.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:27 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
quote:
Yet, RTW laws are celebrated?
Who celebrates them?
Not me or anyone else on this board that I have seen.
Here you go: LINK /
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:27 pm to davyjones
quote:
Are you really one of those people who thinks there’s nothing going on beyond NOLA and BR?
No. I used those two because NOLA is the states largest city, with the largest amount of per capita litigation, and BR is the states most-populated JDC. And all suits against the state are litigated in BR by law, so the 19th gets a ton of mileage. Those two plus Shreveport, Lafayette, LC, and St Tammany have almost all of the state’s civil litigation from a numbers perspective. Yes, those places all have largely terrible judiciary’s populated with awful elected judges who haven’t actually practiced law in their entire career.
quote:
Is there not a possibility that elsewhere in the state there may actually be districts and perhaps even “regions” where the judiciary is fine?
There absolutely is, it just doesn’t matter at all whether Tensas Parish has a good two judges or not.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:28 pm to BeepNode
I see your response thread, bruh. Go argue with them about it.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:29 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I see your response thread, bruh. Go argue with them about it.
Well, you said nobody on the board supports RTW because you realized it was hypocritical so I went ahead and asked them and it's overwhelming support for RTW, thus making your observation ridiculous.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:30 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Correct- it doesn’t matter ultimately whether they are fair or enforceable, so long as the employee has to pay to litigate- the contract enforces itself.
In my experience, the employee’s new employer foots that bill 9.5/10 times, and the 0.5/10 was because the dumbass employee either stole information or did something else that got them sued.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:30 pm to BeepNode
quote:
Well, you said nobody on the board supports RTW because you realized it was hypocritical so I went ahead and asked them and it's overwhelming support for RTW, thus making your observation ridiculous.
Mmk, but I said nobody on this board that I had seen. I don’t. It’s not something that is discussed here often. So what’s your point?
This post was edited on 1/8/23 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:32 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:I have handled a few cases involving these, and always have represented the employee. Having said this, I really disagree with this statement. When done right with appropriate limitations, they are very valuable.
I’m of the opinion that these types of clauses are mostly pointless and little harm would occur to anyone (or any industry) if they were all magically deemed invalid tomorrow.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:34 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
There you go quoting Rush (the band) again. And you say you don't have a pentagram tattoo.
I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
You should, its a great song.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:35 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
You practice in Louisiana and you want MORE cases in front of our awful judiciary?
Arbitration contracts in adhesion contracts are a terrible idea. But, yes, I agree the La judiciary has some problems.
From a political standpoint, The FTC doesn’t need to be setting limits for n noncompete clauses, I agree.
Noncompete clauses have their place, but by and large I’m mistrustful of them and think they’re an invitation to pointless litigation for litigation’s sake.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:35 pm to deeprig9
quote:
If I hire you to be an engineer at my company working in the back room with the trade secrets on which my entire company survives, and I want you to sign an agreement that you can never work for any of my competitors for a period of ten years following your termination (voluntary or not) of this position, I think that has merit.
First that should be covered by an nda not a nca and trade secret laws.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:35 pm to stout
I hate government overreach
However I am ok with protecting people.
I cannot think of any way a non compete ever helps the employee, only the company.
However I am ok with protecting people.
I cannot think of any way a non compete ever helps the employee, only the company.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:36 pm to Indefatigable
Well, you’re still ignoring other places throughout the state beyond what you’ve listed. Lincoln Parish has more than two. But less than four. Lol
Ouachita Parish, 11 elected judges. I’m sure similar in Rapides. Calcasieu. Plenty robust enough judiciaries and bars to consider in the equation of the overall “state judiciary”.
Ouachita Parish, 11 elected judges. I’m sure similar in Rapides. Calcasieu. Plenty robust enough judiciaries and bars to consider in the equation of the overall “state judiciary”.
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:40 pm to novabill
quote:
I cannot think of any way a non compete ever helps the employee, only the company.
Who cares if it mostly protects a company? Small businesses use them the same as large corporations. I gave a great example of how it benefited a small company.
I will repost it here:
A friend of mine owns a business and just won a case where a company was started by a few former employees who were in direct competition with him. They went after his clients which they only knew about from working for him. He had NDAs as well as NCs signed. He won but imagine how much weaker his case would be without a NC.
Why should he be exposed to losing his business just to "protect employees" as you called it?
This post was edited on 1/8/23 at 4:41 pm
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News