Microsoft trumpets updated HR-friendly policies (that comply with recently changed laws)

Microsoft has announced changes to labour relations policy for its US workforce that touch on noncompete clauses, confidentiality agreements and pay transparency. “Microsoft is announcing new changes and investments aimed at further deepening our employee relationships and enhancing our workplace culture,” wrote HR execs Amy …

[Pascal Monett]

"we do not endorse the use of such provisions as a retention tool“

Then why have them in the contract to begin with ?

[Warm Braw]

Re: "we do not endorse the use of such provisions as a retention tool“

When I worked for TfL, new recruits were subject to a day of painfully-formulaic diversity and inclusiveness "awareness", emphasizing the organization's commitment to combating all forms of discrimination.

Shortly afterwards, they were obliged to amend their employment contract terms because they were in conflict with new age-discrimination laws.

Employment contracts emerge from law firms with the intention of ensuring the rights of their clients (the employer) are restricted no more than is strictly necessary and their liabilities minimized. What company official in a large organization is going to put their head above the parapet and suggest a unilateral change that might increase the company's costs - especially relative to their competitors?

This is why meaningful employment rights have to come from legislation.

[Korev]

Re: "we do not endorse the use of such provisions as a retention tool“

What company official in a large organization is going to put their head above the parapet and suggest a unilateral change that might increase the company's costs - especially relative to their competitors?

This is why meaningful employment rights have to come from legislation.

My employer recently equalised parental for men and women (including same sex couples).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "we do not endorse the use of such provisions as a retention tool“

"This is why meaningful employment rights have to come from legislation."

True, almost.

The other source is unions. Which is why major organizations put money (and lawyers) to work in union busting as well as political contributions and lobbying.

[doublelayer]

Re: "we do not endorse the use of such provisions as a retention tool“

If they were telling the truth, they could have a policy of using them only as appropriate; that is, when the person concerned is really about to go work for someone who is employing them to get access to nonpublic information. Taking proprietary designs to someone who will use the same ones is very different to going to a company that has competing products but no secret risk, and a company could restrict their contracts to avoiding that real risk while not penalizing people just trying to leave. I don't even object to something only used in that limited way, but because lots of companies do use it as a stick to beat unsatisfied employees, I still prefer to see legislation limit or eliminate those tools.

[elsergiovolador]

Non compete

If you don't want your employee to turn to competition, pay them enough and ensure the work environment is great so they don't think of it.

If employment contract contains any sort of leash, it's a red flag.

[Version 1.0]

Re: Non compete

Treat your employees well, pay them a decent salary and listen to their thoughts and comments, treating them with respect and they will keep working for you without any threat of voting against your continuing to be the prime minister company director - no risk of them jumping into your competition when you treat them with respect - you can see that this works whether you like it or not.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Non compete

what you said, yes. It's why the laws have changed.

[Arthur Daily]

Non USA staff are 2nd Class

Only for USA workers. So your true values say 'What country to you work in' . Enlightened NOT.

[Alvar]

Re: Non USA staff are 2nd Class

Because employees in civilized countries already have these rights?