News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading by bluGill on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @09:09AM (#33435101)
> If you fire me? No obligation.

Lets change fire to lay off. There is a subtle but important difference. If you fire someone it is generally for cause - that is they did something bad. You still want someone doing their job, but because of their bad behavior it can't be them. That is if someone gets a MBA, moves to a management position and starts demanding sex of their underlings, you fire them and demand they pay for the education you got.

By contrast when you lay someone off, you are saying "you were good at your job, but we don't need someone doing your job anymore" (or maybe we can't afford to pay someone to do the job). You lost your job, but there wasn't anything you could have done different if you wanted to stay.

Re:Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading by sokoloff on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @09:30AM (#33435438)
People mostly get fired for not doing or for sucking at their job rather than for sexual harassment. For a termination "for cause", I don't care much either way whether the training is reimbursable to the company. For termination for poor performance, I think training should not be reimbursable.
Re:Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading by TheCoelacanth on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @10:24AM (#33436305)
Firing for gross misconduct is a reasonable exception, but not all firings in general.