RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
They can say it's based on the restaurant from Season 3 of Curb Your Enthusiasm...They should make an attraction based on how many F works can Gordon throw while he delivers food!
They can say it's based on the restaurant from Season 3 of Curb Your Enthusiasm...They should make an attraction based on how many F works can Gordon throw while he delivers food!
Because they treat Pixar as a religion.So one of the fansites out there posted a passionate little article about the Silicon Valley wage fixing... only the article was in DEFENSE of Pixar and the various other companies involved.
I had to step away from the computer. I don't understand how anyone could defend those actions.
Legally it's not the easy. They need a specific justifiable reason. I believe I've seen this discussed before.What I don't understand is why they just build non-competes into their employment contracts.
"Non-competes" are very common across many different industries. It's not all that difficult....Legally it's not the easy. They need a specific justifiable reason. I believe I've seen this discussed before.
"Non-competes" are very common across many different industries. It's not all that difficult....
Yes, it's not wanting former employees to go work immediately with a direct competitor. It is that simple, Pete....There has to be a specific reason not just the the companies compete and it can't cover everyone only specific positions. For example Thomas tried to keep their head Baker of English muffins from going to work for a competitor and lost in court. I can't remember the company but do remember the case.
"Non-competes" are very common across many different industries. It's not all that difficult....
I was smelling onions on a Patty Melt myselfYes, it's not wanting former employees to go work immediately with a direct competitor. It is that simple, Pete....
The specific reason is that the company across town is a direct competitor. Nothing else. It occurs across all forms of industry. Merely repeating your post doesn't make you right, Pete, just wrong a second time....There has to be a specific reason not just the the companies compete and it can't cover everyone only specific positions. For example Thomas tried to keep their head Baker of English muffins from going to work for a competitor and lost in court. I don't remember the company.
No, the writing is too similar to the lover of monorail footers....I was smelling onions on a Patty Melt myself
or Monorail_Red_77 footers...No, the writing is too similar to the lover of monorail footers....
If it were as simple as you think then Disney and universal are run by idiots. But since they aren't and you are wrong I will just let it go at that.Yes, it's not wanting former employees to go work immediately with a direct competitor. It is that simple, Pete....
No, both have scores of attorneys. But, keep hunting down those footers....If it were as simple as you think then Disney and universal are run by idiots. But since they aren't and you are wrong I will just let it go at that.
Oh in that case IGNORENo, the writing is too similar to the lover of monorail footers....
The specific reason is that the company across town is a direct competitor. Nothing else. It occurs across all forms of industry. Merely repeating your post doesn't make you right, Pete, just wrong a second time....
And in Florida?Non-competes are unenforceable in California except in connection with an owner selling a business (e.g., the dry cleaning guy sells you his store and agrees not to compete, but then opens up a competing store), or when a business dissolves.
My parents just took my kid this past weekend. Waited for him to see it until they could take him. He liked the animation, parents liked the message.
They should just get Emeril to open up another establishment. I had the pleasure of eating at the Delmonico in Las Vegas last month, and it was excellent. I'd love to see him bring something of that caliber to Universal.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.