HN user
Thanks to everyone in this chain for sharing! I've learned so much from your programs and was inspired to make my repo public and do a write up as well. I was 52nd place with a score of 599.
Where did you learn this from?
This interpretation is incorrect. The section you mention is a subsection of 296-128-500, which defines the minimum rates for certain professions to be exempt from overtime. In this case, computer professionals paid at least 3.5x the minimum wage and who are paid on an hourly basis are exempt. The level to qualify as exempt if an employee is paid on a salary basis is defined in 545.
Interesting analogy but I’m not convinced it’s the best one. One might also note that in many large scale restaurants, there is in fact only a handful of chefs who determine the menu and most of the day to day is handled by cooks assigned to various specialized stations.
Worth noting that this varies heavily by issuer - I checked out the most recent 10Ks for Amex and Discover (Visa and MC are networks and as such, operate off interchange, not interest, and I tried looking at Chase's 10K but it was too complicated for me to figure out the revenue breakdowns for their consumer card business)
* Amex had 67b in interest + non-interest revenue, of which the single biggest driver was discount revenue (aka interchange) at 33b. Interest contributed 20b, card membership fees contributed 7b, and services fees and other were ~7b combined. Amex's target base is wealthier individuals.
* Discover had 14.4b in credit card interest revenue and 1.4b in net discount and interchange revenue (meaning after paying rewards). Discover caters mostly to what the financial industry would euphemistically call "subprime" creditors.
I'd look into industry trade groups and self-regulatory organizations. A few U.S. examples that come to mind are FINRA (broker-dealers), bar associations (lawyers), AMA (doctors), AICPA (accountants), etc.
Source? My understanding is that at-will states have a default presumption of at-will employment in the absence of a contract, but parties are free to contract alternatively. Which states invalidate mutually agreed upon notice periods?
Page 83-84 provides some guidance on garden leave and suggests that it will still be allowed under the new rule:
With respect to garden leave agreements, as noted previously, commenters used the term “garden leave” to refer to a wide variety of agreements. The Commission declines to opine on how the definition of non-compete clause in § 910.1 would apply in every potential factual scenario. However, the Commission notes that an agreement whereby the worker is still employed and receiving the same total annual compensation and benefits on a pro rata basis would not be a non-compete clause under the definition, because such an agreement is not a post-employment restriction. Instead, the worker continues to be employed, even though the worker’s job duties or access to colleagues or the workplace may be significantly or entirely curtailed. Furthermore, where a worker does not meet a condition to earn a particular aspect of their expected compensation, like a prerequisite for a bonus, the Commission would still consider the arrangement “garden leave” that is not a non-compete clause under this final rule even if the employer did not pay the bonus or other expected compensation. Similarly, a severance agreement that imposes no restrictions on where the worker may work following the employment associated with the severance agreement is not a non-compete clause under § 910.1, because it does not impose a post-employment restriction.
Any employment law enthusiasts here who can comment on whether garden leave is still allowed under this? I would assume so, given the employment is active and the employee is still being paid, it is effectively an extended notice period where the employee doesn't do any work.
Thanks! I assume it's referencing this sentence and surrounding info: > "Dozens of documents from across the company reveal that Zuckerberg had spoken to the company’s head of security, its then-CTO, and others about the risks and rewards of the IAAP program—which involved the interception and decryption of secure analytics traffic from Snapchat, YouTube, and Amazon for competitive reasons—and would personally make a decision about whether to continue it."
I'm not sure where it jumps to "wiretapping" (just from a layperson's standpoint). The image I had in my head was Meta tapping the phones or devices of Amazon and Youtube employees which was probably a silly interpretation of the title.
Where is this headline coming from? I haven't been following this case, and unfortunately, either my poor legal or technical comprehension prevents me from finding the points in this brief which substantiate the submission title.
I am also confused about what this paper is describing. My read is that having two staff (a dedicated barista and a dedicated cashier) outperforms having one staff (working as both barista and cashier). This seems like a trivial result, am I missing something?