he face alone. What's more, you can't even blame your higher brain for such bias. The impulse seems to arise in the primitive amygdala. If your prefrontal cortex is your summa cum laude lobe, the amygdala is Barney Rubble. Says Todorov: "This is a case of a high-level judgment being made by a low-level brain structure."
Read more here.…
hings tidy, I decided to create a new topic. Looking forward to your thoughts and insights :)
Per the discussion on weighing whether a TPR firm should 1099 versus hire W-2, I am in 110% agreement with the fact that top salespeople are interested in commissions (as they trade security for greater potential reward). In fact, it's why I run my own firm - Could there be a better example? :)
However, let me ask a question for a point of not really understanding how this could play out . . . but not being completely in the dark, either. (What I mean is that I am not, nor have zero aspirations to be, an attorney . . . however, I have sat through classes on top of classes regarding law [unfortunately, I might add - lol.] Personally, I have only seen one case in which a non-compete was enforced within our industry, and it was a former W-2 employee (not a 1099 contractor.)
Here is my question: Do you believe, or do you have relevant examples, of whether a true Non-Compete is enforceable with a 1099 contractor who is working for a TPR firm as a Production Recruiter?
[Note: Keep in mind that the context of this question - It is NOT about our typical misclassification examples, such as a 1099 contractor really being co-employed by working at a Client site through a contracting firm, etc. This question is purely from a TPR firm perspective.]
I very well may be incorrect, but my instincts tell me that this arrangement would be quite difficult to enforce, given the fact that the Client (or engaging party of the 1099 contractor) is not withholding taxes.
I may be incorrect here as well, but I have a hard time believing that such a case would be ruled in favor of the Client or engaging party . . . however I do believe it would be quite a deterrent for recruiters who do not wish to sink thousands of dollars into defending themselves (and/or recruiters who have little knowledge about what makes a non-compete enforceable in the first place.)
In the end, I truly wish things were so simple (that we could hire 1099, avoid taxes withheld, be under no obligation to pay any form of benefits, be able to lay the 1099 off 'at will' with no recourse to unemployment insurance, etc.). However, my better judgment tells me that when the chips fall, we would be at a significant disadvantage legally.
Just my $.02 and I look forward to responses.…
rg/wiki/Heuristics_in_judgment_and_decision_making): simple, efficient rules which people often use to form judgments and make decisions. They are mental shortcuts that usually involve focusing on one aspect of a complex problem and ignoring others These rules work well under most circumstances, but they can lead to systematic deviations from logic, probability or rational choice theory. The resulting errors are called "cognitive biases" and many different types have been documented. These have been shown to affect people's choices in situations like valuing a house or deciding the outcome of a legal case. Heuristics usually govern automatic, intuitive judgments but can also be used as deliberate mental strategies when working from limited information.
Amy, I have nothing against doing these, as said before we ALL make generalizations, stereotypes, etc, because we HAVE to. Saying that, I think it's important to try and make ones based on better and more-accurate categories when we have the information...
Keith "As Biased as They Come" Halperin…