The little clause that causes a lot of hassle either side of the BOP, that is to say in the SE and benefits. To explain the meaning of this clause, return a little back:
When the benefits are "rented" an SE by BP, two contracts governing the tripartite relationship. The contract signed between the Commission and BP benefits, and a contract "deal" between BP and the client (SE). These contracts can both provide that the customer has no right to employ the benefits or the benefits is not entitled to get hired by the client, even though both parties would agree.
According to the statements of trade clause that keeps the unit of BP, because the only value of BP, are the brains of benefits: If all the benefits began to leave, the BP could invest more in them, hoping to keep them on time, and this would cause the loss. That is how some justify this unfair clause, which is nothing other than "What, you want to get your personal interest before that of the box that pampers you?". Now if this was really the case, the BP does not recruit mostly young graduates with no relevant experience to spare ...
The reason as I see it is: An established fact is that it is on the young graduates that BP make the most margin. In addition, when benefits remains in a BP, salary evolves very little and often less than inflation. Thus, trying to keep her at any cost benefits recruited graduates, BP ensures a margin (bah yes it's good, it was understood) very comfortable, which grows along with inflation! Back on topic ...
In fact, the non-compete clause in this contract benefits / BP has no legal value but is yet to put enough pressure on the young benefits for not daring to the step to hire a "own". So why is it invalid the clause? The question worth asking: For this clause to bind the benefits to BP forever (or until two years after the end of the CDI), BP must compensate the employee at the height of a certain percentage from the pay since he is in now, when the break is. It is natural to find a percentage of 20%, this could go on much as some of our big bosses know it. Unfortunately for our little benefits, BP will never drop a dime and will prefer the bluff and the worst kind of pressure to keep the chick in the nest muddy. Thus, like BP are never ready to seize the desirability of decency by a fair and honest compensation, this clause is void.
Where the rub is in the contract SE / BP. Indeed, it can be stated in the contract that the SE has no right to propose a hiring benefits, or that the SE has no right to recruit the benefits, even if it is passed through whose recruitment was not aware SE (possible in very large boxes in which recruitment is outsourced). Do not see too much life in black anyway. Some BP agreed to sell their small for a consideration their ensuring a flow of money increased.
Example: BP proposes to let the SE hire little-benefits-performance, in exchange for which the SE agrees to take two benefits on a mission to him. An exchange win-win business like a word with his allegedly convincing.
Thus, the non-competition can pose problems, but know that ultimately, if benefits are motivated by hiring its own, and that HE wants too, the BP is not really able to make weight, even if it will use all means at its disposal to terrorize the small benefits.
In this regard, I will tell you later a little story really happened to a friend, and shows that despite a mutual benefits / SE for hiring "own", the BP can always put sticks or tree trunks in the wheels of both parties wanting to be united by the sacred bonds of the CDI.
0 comments:
Post a Comment