1. Kleiner Perkins freed of all charges. This highlights just how male-dominated and sexist the tech industry is.
2. Kleiner Perkins guilty of all charges. This highlights just how male-dominated and sexist the tech industry is.

It's kinda like "global warming," where any change in the weather (or any lack of change in the weather) is cited as proof. A Venn diagram of SJWs vs. warmistas would, I suspect, have a very high degree of overlap.

I think you have it the other way around.

Suppose you put an application in with my company, and yes, warehouse workers are filling applications out and likely skipping the resume submission. I call your current employer
(XYZ), say I'm sumdumass with "ZYX", I need employment verification for LDAPMAN.

whether your current employer says anything or not, your current employer knows my company which competes with them was thinking of hiring you so you are obviously intending to ignore the non compete agreement and leave for a job they banned you from taking via the non compete. They can call my company after you quit and I can tell them to stuff it, but they still know. They could be crafty and send a fedex package to you at your workplace and see if it is accepted or returned to find that you are actually working there. They can do a lot of things but the point is, they know you likely ignored the non compete and likely would be working at one of the places that called for employment history validation.

While I'm sure this is something to be considered, I'm not sure it is entirely possible. Some states will have restrictions on what can actually be covered by a non compete agreement. In Washington state for instance, a non compete is limited to customer information and contacts and something called good will (however that is defined) and limited to what is reasonably necessary.

This is kind of confusing as each state seems to be different to some respect. Some states also have a red line policy where if something is overly broad or not within the law, the entire agreement is tossed out while others will use a blue line approach and only strike out what is in conflict to make the NCA enforceable. Yet there is another process called reformation in which the courts would actually rework the Non-compete in order to make it enforceable
(eg, striking out the entire state as overly broad and inserting a metropolitan area or radius of distance from the locations of the employer they determine to be reasonably enforceable)

Here is a little more about how it varies in different states

And of course, here is the PDF which charts it

http://www.beckreedriden.com/w...

I suspect they have no intention of ever enforcing this non compete. I think it is to scare the workers into not leaving for greener pastures, or better pay/benefits/work conditions.

Great, then they should have no problem removing the portion of the agreement that would give them the right to do so.

http://blog.plover.com/law/contracts.html

It's not really the ex-employer keeping track that you have to worry about. Almost all prospective employers will call for a reference and then they know you are looking into a banned job. But the most troublesome for you would be friends and people you used to work with running into you on the street or something and you letting it slip that you are working somewhere specific. They then either out of amazement or stupidity, end up telling someone else at work and eventually it become common enough knowledge that the management hears about it.

It's happened to me before. I've wondered out loud about how some former coworker was doing and someone ends up telling me "just fine, they are working at XYZ now" not realizing they should have used a bit more discretion. Before I knew it, I was in the office being grilled by the boss and almost lost my job by telling them I was talking about someone from school not work when they heard the entire conversation. Thankfully, it turns out in my situation that the former employee already cleared the job with higher up management so the only one in any trouble was me. I soon found another job.

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?

A perfectly valid question to ask. Communism is the most murderous school of thought known to humanity — even Hitler bizarre brand of Fascism was but a distant second.

Nothing "paranoid" about it. The above-mentioned Rosenberg was introduced to Soviet spies by a fellow American Communist (Bernard Schuster). Thus, belonging to CPUSA was not only indicative of supporting the Communism (whose murderousness was not as well-known back then), but also of a high likelihood of being a traitor.

I'd say the number of non-threats who were actively and vigorously blackballed

Citations needed.

Then add in civil rights discontent

The civil rights discontent was also actively instigated by the USSR. Both by covert payment to Americans and overt propaganda by the Soviets themselves.

So just because the USSR tried to manipulate the peace movement therefore delegitimizes the entire peace movement?

No, not entire — there were sincere pacifists even during WW2 — and not automatically. We need to painfully examine, to what extent the peace movement was compromised by involvement of both USSR and domestic terrorists. You may suspect me of overestimating the enemy's impact, but you are certainly underestimating it.

I'm just raising awareness — so that the healing can begin.

When the US was about to resume shooting in Iraq in 2003, the whole world erupted in the biggest coordinated protest in history — and not by Iraqis, but by outraged Westerners expressing their sympathy.. Where were these peace-loving legions, when Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014? What few protests there were, they were largely by Ukrainian expats with very few sympathetic locals in evidence. Why?

Because Putin's propaganda machine worked — on the entire spectrum of Western politics, not just the Left as the USSR used to. Rightist Jews in the US were accusing Ukraine's new "junta" of being "nazis", while actual American Nazis called the new government "Jews". Without arguing with each other, but both helped Putin. Most likely, they didn't realize it — but there is no doubt, a there is a group of analysts at FSB attached to each Western opinion-maker. US is a pathetic noob at this.

Wake up and smell "people's power" — and the power of propagandists to manipulate it.

Is that your way of saying you have not been paying attention to the news over the last few years nor do you know how to use google?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ruling+bu... >Here, let me help you. Now if you scroll down a bit, you will find at least the bakery and the florist situation. There are a couple others that I know of, one in which a couple offered their farm home to members of their church for weddings because of the "view" and was forced to allow gays to wed there due to state law.

Seriously, google is your friend.

it's there but when you speak out, you will get flamed for it as unpatriotic terrist commie pinko.

Citations needed.

can't exercise their skillset and background for 18 months after they leave a position without otherwise providing due compensation

But they are provided compensation! Certainly enough, that they consider it acceptable to work for Amazon knowing about the restriction.

Just because people choose to work in a place, doesn't mean they choose to trample the employer's rights. It works both ways — "the rich" have rights too, you know.

Or should he accept the job protecting his family from financial ruin now but at the possible non-compete expense further down the line?

We are all responsible for the choices we make. Each one is deciding for himself.

I can easily take your line of reasoning further — are the marital vows binding? How about Pledge of Allegiance — is that a "cohesive contract", that you are welcome to walk away from when money gets tight and a foreign power offers you payment in exchange for treason?

For some people, Amazon may the only reasonable option available at the time.

Well, if the non-compete clause is part of a (or even the) reasonable option, then what's the problem?

And it is not reasonable, then your statement is simply not true.

Fortunately, we don't need to decide it here for all — everyone can make their own choice.

Remember this isn't a criminal offense. Most warehouse workers are 'judgement proof', in that they don't have the assets to pay anything. The court isn't going to say 'you have to quit your job' because it has financial interest in NOT paying for their welfware because they can't work at what they're skilled at due to the non-compete.

Amazon would pay more than they could recover pretty much every day the court trial went on. Also, there might actually be enough push-back if they tried to change laws.

Personally, I'd like to see a law of 'sure, write up whatever non-competes you want. However, it means that the the employee is still your employee during the non-compete period. Which means you still have to pay them their salary and benefits'. Don't want them working for the competitor for 12 months? You gotta pay them to sit on their ass for 12 months.

Finally, it sounds like they stuck the non-compete into their boilerplate employment documents. It's not intentionally targeting warehouse people, though I suppose that with the increasing amounts of robotics in them, it might be deliberate, so said workers don't go describing how the robots work.