> "About one in five American workers—approximately 30 million people—are bound by a non-compete clause and are thus restricted from pursuing better employment opportunities. A non-compete clause is a contractual term between an employer and a worker that blocks the worker from working for a competing employer, or starting a competing business, typically within a certain geographic area and period of time after the worker’s employment ends. Because non-compete clauses prevent workers from leaving jobs and decrease competition for workers, they lower wages for both workers who are subject to them as well as workers who are not. Non-compete clauses also prevent new businesses from forming, stifling entrepreneurship, and prevent novel innovation which would otherwise occur when workers are able to broadly share their ideas. The Federal Trade Commission proposes preventing employers from entering into non-compete clauses with workers and requiring employers to rescind existing non-compete clauses. The Commission estimates that the proposed rule would increase American workers’ earnings between $250 billion and $296 billion per year. The Commission is asking for the public’s opinion on its proposal to declare that non-compete clauses are an unfair method of competition, and on the possible alternatives to this rule that the Commission has proposed. "
I use cash for so so so much. I will bring a couple of thousand USD on a trip and convert it to the local currency to avoid exactly this hassle. Not just for me but for the merchant as well.
I honestly don't remember the last time I used wikipedia. As a member of a minority community. It doesn't have anything that I care about. My information resources are elsewhere.
I wouldn't be surprised if the number of admins was cut in half again in the next 10 years.
My experience with companies pulling DIY contract addendums out of their ass is that they forget severability clauses. Or that the contract starts falling apart because they have other sections which refer to the severed part which means those sections also fall apart. For example, a damages section that ends up exceeding state law.
DIY contracts are the best to sign because they are such a mess.
... or move to the State of California which has laws that make such contracts illegal. I remember one contract I signed which had an addendum that read:
"section blah blah does not apply to residents of the State of California."
So 49 other state residents are getting a bad deal but California residents are getting a better deal, yet the company is doing just fine. Hmmm Maybe that section isn't needed anywhere?
I write blog entries when I have to explain the same thing more than once. I just write the "email" as a blog entry and then just send a link to the blog post.
So I write blog posts as a way to reduce my effort.
This is why I don't buy specialty hardware devices anymore. I jumped off the smart device treadmill with the fitbit.
The only thing in my house that gets access to the internet are my computers and phone. Nothing else. If I turn it on and it complains about no internet - it gets returned as defective.
I have a car charger (Juice Box) that have a smart app to control it. Nope not for me. Last thing I want is a hacked device fucking with my car's charging.
Why? I do this stuff all the time as a manager. It really goes exactly that way. Notice that the reddit commenter started with getting buy-in from the higher-up in their org. He didn't unilaterally start changing process.
This is honestly basic management technique. It is called the "Auntie/Uncle" problem.
manager-tools.com : a series of superb podcast. Pay for the personal license; $200/year is worth it.
Read "The Alliance" by Reed Hoffman.
My best advice:
- weekly 1:1s
- accept that you will not be as knowledgeable about everything (lack of time)
- establish expectations at the very beginning
- start off with realizing that no one will retire from the current company. Let your directs know that at some point you expect they will move on. This is so liberating.
From the FTC rule finding (1/2023): https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/federal-register-no...
> "About one in five American workers—approximately 30 million people—are bound by a non-compete clause and are thus restricted from pursuing better employment opportunities. A non-compete clause is a contractual term between an employer and a worker that blocks the worker from working for a competing employer, or starting a competing business, typically within a certain geographic area and period of time after the worker’s employment ends. Because non-compete clauses prevent workers from leaving jobs and decrease competition for workers, they lower wages for both workers who are subject to them as well as workers who are not. Non-compete clauses also prevent new businesses from forming, stifling entrepreneurship, and prevent novel innovation which would otherwise occur when workers are able to broadly share their ideas. The Federal Trade Commission proposes preventing employers from entering into non-compete clauses with workers and requiring employers to rescind existing non-compete clauses. The Commission estimates that the proposed rule would increase American workers’ earnings between $250 billion and $296 billion per year. The Commission is asking for the public’s opinion on its proposal to declare that non-compete clauses are an unfair method of competition, and on the possible alternatives to this rule that the Commission has proposed. "