NDAs originally were used to stop corporate espionage which was very necessary as anything with r&d could see their employees run off with the ip to other companies to make more money on their end. Like with most things they can be abused but the background behind them was extremely necessary for the economy at the time.
Non competes were for the same reason. Microsoft famously did it to Apple back in the day, just like a lot of tech companies would employee poach then make a clone while skirting NDAs because the “employee” wasn’t on the official development team.
you can generally fight them and win in court if you have the money, assuming your ex-employer compensates you fairly for the duration of the non-compete. They pay you or you are free to go work for whomever you would like.
Agreed. Generally do not like those non compete shit. You're good in one branch but your former company says you are not allowed to work in it for 1-2 years, causing you needless loss of imcome.
Former employer already invested that compensation in the employee, by developing his skills and competencies.
Why did he accept the job with a non-compete agreement? Because he thought he was getting enough from it to compensate. Don't take the job with a noncompete if it's not worth it to you.
Employee signed a non-compete for the job. End of story.
Slavery is illegal.
If anything a noncompete is the opposite of slavery; they want you to not work. Hey slave, whatever you do don't pick that cotton for a year! But it's a dumb analogy anyway.
"why did he sign that lease? he could have just been homeless.
Are you talking about leases that say you can't live in the same kind of house for a year, but you can live in any other kind of house? I'm not familiar with those.
Just because a contract contains a clause doesn't make that clause valid or legal.
Sure, that's for the courts and they've said a reasonable-length non-compete term is legal and valid. Because unlike not-gay Jared most people aren't children who can't plan for a year in advance.
He was bitching about the monetizing policy which would have seen his show lose 30% revenue share from getting demonetized by YouTube. At least with crowder he does usually bring the receipts and trounced DW on that one and the attempted employee poaching. The mutual NDA in this one makes it murkier as neither side is showing any evidence but making claims or playing mum because of the NDA.
Non-competes have to be pretty narrowly written. They would have to show that Jared working for another company would directly harm Crowder's revenue, and since Jared isn't "Talent" that seems dubious.
This is standard practice. Non-competes are (unfortunately) very common. I find it very unfortunate that Jared is trying to take down Crowder.
Is there any way we can contribute to Crowder?
NDAs originally were used to stop corporate espionage which was very necessary as anything with r&d could see their employees run off with the ip to other companies to make more money on their end. Like with most things they can be abused but the background behind them was extremely necessary for the economy at the time.
Non competes were for the same reason. Microsoft famously did it to Apple back in the day, just like a lot of tech companies would employee poach then make a clone while skirting NDAs because the “employee” wasn’t on the official development team.
you can generally fight them and win in court if you have the money, assuming your ex-employer compensates you fairly for the duration of the non-compete. They pay you or you are free to go work for whomever you would like.
Agreed. Generally do not like those non compete shit. You're good in one branch but your former company says you are not allowed to work in it for 1-2 years, causing you needless loss of imcome.
Non-compete seems fine if they give me severance for the entire duration.
I agree they should be illegal, but they're not.
Former employer already invested that compensation in the employee, by developing his skills and competencies.
Why did he accept the job with a non-compete agreement? Because he thought he was getting enough from it to compensate. Don't take the job with a noncompete if it's not worth it to you.
Employee signed a non-compete for the job. End of story.
If anything a noncompete is the opposite of slavery; they want you to not work. Hey slave, whatever you do don't pick that cotton for a year! But it's a dumb analogy anyway.
Are you talking about leases that say you can't live in the same kind of house for a year, but you can live in any other kind of house? I'm not familiar with those.
Sure, that's for the courts and they've said a reasonable-length non-compete term is legal and valid. Because unlike not-gay Jared most people aren't children who can't plan for a year in advance.
Wasn’t Crowder bitching about how Kiked his offer from the Daily Wire was? Seems like he wasn’t treating his employees much better.
He was bitching about the monetizing policy which would have seen his show lose 30% revenue share from getting demonetized by YouTube. At least with crowder he does usually bring the receipts and trounced DW on that one and the attempted employee poaching. The mutual NDA in this one makes it murkier as neither side is showing any evidence but making claims or playing mum because of the NDA.
Non-competes have to be pretty narrowly written. They would have to show that Jared working for another company would directly harm Crowder's revenue, and since Jared isn't "Talent" that seems dubious.