Posted on 12/26/2021 4:25:58 PM PST by cutty
I hear that.
I will never again fly United. Never.
As the Soviet workers said, “We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us”.
Similar problems exist in union shops in the US; diligent workers are told to slow down.
Just the rumor alone that mechanics are sabotaging the jets will have a significant negative impact on the company. Keep the planes safe, promote the rumor.
I wonder how employers with vax mandates intended to handle anyone with legitimate medical reasons to avoid the hot shots; we’re told that there are practically no valid medical reasons one shouldn’t get the needle, but an acquaintance told me her doctor insisted she not get it because of some recent medical procedure.
They could stick it to those seeking medical reasons with apparently little push-back or bad publicity, but how will they accommodate those with medical exemptions? If there really is a risk (to themselves or those around them), then you can’t just let them come to work; the Chicken Littles painted themselves into a corner on this issue.
Agreed, I never read that post as advocating for sabotaging an airliner’s engine. I think he was talking about sabotaging United reputation for safety. Unilaterally grounding a couple dozen planes would do that, and kill no one. Climb down off your high horse, Karen.
There’s your proof.
This isn’t about health or safety - this is cold hearted political tyranny.
+10
They just need to slow down their work or refuse to certify their work. Any sabotage is criminal and deserves prosecution.
Excellent point about folks with medical issues not being able to get the shots.
Thanks; I really don’t know how they can handle it. They can’t tell us co-worker A is dangerous because he doesn’t want them for personal reasons but co-worker B is safe because he has a valid medical reason not to get them. Either you can be around both safely or neither.
“Climb down off your high horse, Karen”.
Is that meant for me or the poster we were discussing?
Why were you flying United (aka Untied) before???
how despotic and depraved at the same time. it’s like putting workers in virtual prison.
So thankful I got out of that company years ago. Continental Airlines was great, but when United bought them it all went to hell. From Worst to First back to Worst.
bye bye united
“ I’m calling you out for playing internet lawyer and lying about what the law is.”
Well, I don’t know one way or another if the can enforce them (I certainly think it would be illogical to be able to), but based on the standards YOU DEMAND, it’s now up to YOU to prove your assertion that he’s lying.
See how that works? Let’s see your proof that he’s lying. You made the claim and per your standards, you must now back it up.
#turnaboutisfairplay
Cross country business trips had me flying United. Now I think I’ll pay the extra fare and go charter from now on.
Your post is asinine. He made the claim that there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court that says non-competes are unenforceable if you aren’t getting paid (layoff or termination.)
The burden is on him.
The burden doesn’t shift because someone calls him out as a liar. He made the claim, I don’t have to prove a negative.
Beyond that, I did link everyone to a State by State resource that affirms that what I said is correct. This is a matter a State law. The law varies State by State, and in many, employment non-competes are absolutely enforceable after the end of employment.
#Perhapsreadingisntyourstrongpoint
But, just for fun, we can run a lexisadvance search (something that actual lawyers have access to) and here are a few cases where non-competes were found to be valid and enforceable after the end of employment:
Ethicon, Inc. v. Randall, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102119, at *69 (D.N.J. May 28, 2021)
Clifton Steel Co. v. Trinity Equip. Co., 2018-Ohio-2186, ¶ 41, 115 N.E.3d 10, 20 (Ct. App.)
Firstenergy Sols. Corp. v. Flerick, 521 F. App’x 521, 529 (6th Cir. 2013).
Nordetek Envtl., Inc. v. RDP Techs., Inc., 677 F. Supp. 2d 825, 843 (E.D. Pa. 2010)
#Whenyoucanpassabarexamcomebackandtalktome
Sorry Karen, you’re wrong, in both your original whining and by pretending that you are not responsible for proving your claim that someone is a liar.
The original trigger for you was when CodeToad correctly posted that you must be paid for a non-compete to be enforceable. I realize you might get triggered from hearing that and this, not be able to read the following sentences, but it’s true.
You must be provided some “consideration”. That could be an outright cash payment, promotion, bonus, etc, but they’ve got to give you something for it. Read it for yourself.
https://www.upcounsel.com/non-compete-enforceability
FTA:
“ In most states, the non-compete agreement cannot be enforced unless the employee receives a payment or benefit in exchange for signing it. Some states only enforce trade secret protection but invalidate work restrictions. About 33 percent of states restrict non-compete agreements and do not enforce them because they prevent individuals from being able to work for a living and support themselves. The employer has the burden of proof to show that the restrictions it has placed on the employee are reasonable. ”
Admit it, you’re wrong, I don’t expect you will, as Karen’s rarely do, but you’re wrong and look foolish because of it.
No non-compete is going to stand up to the point of starving you out. They have never been THAT powerful, and are even weaker when the employer is the one instigating the separation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.