tall big structures, nice looking hotel at the edge of the palm, but nothing feels organic and everything is safe, very safe, primarily because workers and poor can't afford to live there so they live in the another emirate.
Tbh the old town is nothing impressive either, plus i don't think you meet locals there
Take a look at those areas I referred to in my previous comment and you'll see that your image of Dubai is but one part of the wider picture. Ask yourself if the West End and the City are all of London or if Beverly Hills is all of LA?
Plenty of people live in Karama and Bur Dubai (i.e. not in Sharjah), for example, who are not especially rich - those parts of Dubai are in fact the oldest and most populous parts of Dubai! Visit those places - don't just go to the usual tourist traps of the Palm, the Marina, and Downtown!
been to old dubai, it s basically touristy, has an unhealthy obsession with gold jewellery, and i m not sure if the people there are locals or know local traditions.
my guess is , if there s going to be something culturally interesting arising near dubai, it will arise in sharjah where immigrants live
OK, but that's REALLY hard to assess for a normal person on their own.
Moreover, it doesn't prevent unreasonable entities from having their retained lawyers draft scary letters. Most people just sign the boilerplate, hope for the best, and try not to poke sticks into wasp nests if they can avoid it.
But at software engineer salaries, it's not that expensive to get legal advice for this. I did it once, when a company I'd worked at for over a decade was bought out, and insisted everyone sign onerous contracts including broad IP assignment. I read the contracts carefully, marked them up with specific questions, and spent $300 on a half-hour consult with a lawyer, who said it was pretty much all enforceable in my state. (So I left the company, which worked out fine.)
One question/comment here, I don't think they can force you to sign a new one in most states without giving you something in return. I know someone who refused to sign a new contract because they didn't give him anything in return, and there was nothing they could do about it, or at least there was nothing they did do about it.
Hah interesting. My lawyer didn't mention that so maybe my state was an exception. Or, our employers can fire us anytime for any reason so maybe he figured it would be impractical to litigate.
That's like saying, "it's dishonorable to agree to a contract to kill someone knowing full well such a contract isn't enforceable."
If one party holds all the cards in a contract negotiation it's never truly being negotiated in good faith in the first place. Furthermore, one could argue that without having an expert on contract law right then and there available to answer any questions about any given contract means it falls under a "lack of capacity" for basically anyone who isn't a lawyer.
Employee agreements often fail in courts because of:
- Duress
- Lack of capacity (e.g. due to overly complicated legalese *specifically written to be hard to understand*)
- Undue influence (e.g. company says they'll hire someone else if you ask to get the contract reviewed by a lawyer before signing)
- Misrepresentation (e.g. job was described as "X" but turns out it's "Y")
- Non-disclosure (e.g. candidate was not told job would require purchasing products or services sold by the company itself or a partner)
- Unconscionability (e.g. some term or terms in the contract are so unfair that it cannot be allowed to stand... Like a non-compete that says you can't work within 50 miles of your former place of employment if you leave)
The "usual one" is unconscionability: Employers have unfair bargaining power almost all of the time and judges and juries are easy to convince of this. Also, these sorts of things don't usually make it to court unless there's something ridiculous in the contract. What's interesting is there usually is something ridiculous in every employee contract. It's just that those ridiculous things aren't usually the part of the contract a company is trying to enforce so they don't come up as often.
It's even more dishonorable for a company with a legal team to offer up terms in a contract that are explicitly illegal, and then use those illegal terms to conduct unfair and deceptive business practices in the labor market.
In fact, that scenario is so dishonorable that in some states you can ask the court for triple damages if the employer tries to enforce the noncompete
For anyone in the US who needs regular healthcare beyond what's provided by Medicaid, the labor market is a war for (literal) survival. If the ownership class didn't want to return to an extremely adversarial relationship with labor, then they shouldn't have gutted the social safety net.
And no, I'm not going to show my hand in an imperfect information game... it would be stupid and dishonorable to my family to present with anything other than bourgeoisie professional-managerial class sensibilities.
Dishonorable? I don't think so. They're the ones trying to trick employees into immoral and illegal obligations. They only have themselves to blame if it blows up in their faces. They played the game and they lost.
If an agreement is unenforceable, it's almost certainly abusive and exploitative in nature. I mean, it actually got to the point that the agreement was overridden by law. Doesn't even make sense to talk about honor in the same context. Would honorable people propose such an agreement?
They're likely banking on that sense of honor to make you hold yourself to obligations they can't legally hold you to.
Speaking from experience, you're right given its convenience. Though, I (and any responsible lawyer for that matter) will then also look up the case on WestLaw/Lexis given Wikipedia is very much an imperfect source.
If you actually read the article properly, you'll read the author has adequately anticipated and dealt with your objections. Please read the article before you comment.
