Re:Global capital is the tail that wags the U.S. economic dog
by matthewmcg on Friday October 02, 2020 @01:07PM
(#24664689)
This is true, but I imagine your scenario might be followed by threats from the CEO to X about noncompete clauses, confidential information, and theft of the company’s IP.
On the whole, these legal protections strongly advantage capital vs. labor, though California residents might benefit from their state’s hostility to non-compete clauses.
Re:Global capital is the tail that wags the U.S. economic dog
by jk700 on Friday October 02, 2020 @01:18PM
(#24664789)
> This is true, but I imagine your scenario might be followed by threats from the CEO to X about noncompete clauses, confidential information, and theft of the company’s IP.
Those are empty threats if the team is not from the CEO's litigious country.
Re:Global capital is the tail that wags the U.S. economic dog
by s1artibartfast on Friday October 02, 2020 @12:52PM
(#24664517)
Isn't the inverse true as well?
While this could have some downside re compensation, I look forward to employers smoothing the on/off-boarding process. Nothing is more frustrating than engaging with incompetent coworkers who are only around because it is too hard to find a replacement.
Re:Global capital is the tail that wags the U.S. economic dog
by dundarious on Friday October 02, 2020 @12:48PM
(#24664480)
Even so, that will be an option for a minority of workers.
If it doesn't let me paint a picture. CEO comes in and checks their email. There's an email from his development team lead. "Dear CEO, The team and I had a discussion and and we no longer have confidence in your ability to usher this project to a successful outcome and have decided to work for company X in country Y. We have ceased development for your project at 8:17am and will be working for X as of 8:18am.