Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

 It is currently 18 Jul 2019, 00:01

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Some companies in fields where skilled employees

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Current Student
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4273
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Some companies in fields where skilled employees  [#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Apr 2015, 08:26
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

80% (01:57) correct 20% (02:33) wrong based on 448 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Some companies in fields where skilled employees are hard to find make signing an "agreement not to compete" a condition of employment. In such an agreement the employee promises not to go work for a competing firm for a set period after leaving his or her current employer. Courts are increasingly ruling that these agreements are not binding. Yet paradoxically, for people who signed such agreements when working for competing firms, many firms are unwilling to consider hiring them during the period covered by the agreement.

Which one of the following if true, most helps to resolve the paradox?

(A) Many companies will not risk having to become involved in lawsuits, even suits that they expect to have a favourable outcome.

(B) In some industries for example, the broadcast media, companies‟ main source of new employees tends to be people who are already employed by competing firms

(C) Most companies that require their employees to sign agreements not to compete are aware that these documents are not legally binding

(D) Many people who have signed agreements not to compete are unwilling to renege on a promise by going to work for a competing firm

(E) Many companies consider their employees established relationships with clients and other people outside the company to be valuable company assets

_________________
Retired Moderator
Status: On a mountain of skulls, in the castle of pain, I sit on a throne of blood.
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Posts: 304
Re: Some companies in fields where skilled employees  [#permalink]

Show Tags

03 Apr 2015, 00:47
1
souvik101990 wrote:
Some companies in fields where skilled employees are hard to find make signing an "agreement not to compete" a condition of employment. In such an agreement the employee promises not to go work for a competing firm for a set period after leaving his or her current employer. Courts are increasingly ruling that these agreements are not binding. Yet paradoxically, for people who signed such agreements when working for competing firms, many firms are unwilling to consider hiring them during the period covered by the agreement.

Which one of the following if true, most helps to resolve the paradox?

(A) Many companies will not risk having to become involved in lawsuits, even suits that they expect to have a favourable outcome.

(B) In some industries for example, the broadcast media, companies‟ main source of new employees tends to be people who are already employed by competing firms

(C) Most companies that require their employees to sign agreements not to compete are aware that these documents are not legally binding

(D) Many people who have signed agreements not to compete are unwilling to renege on a promise by going to work for a competing firm

(E) Many companies consider their employees established relationships with clients and other people outside the company to be valuable company assets

Time : 1:37

(A) Many companies will not risk having to become involved in lawsuits, even suits that they expect to have a favourable outcome. -Correct. Even though the company knows that the courts will rule in their favour, they still have to incur the costs of a lawsuit.

(B) In some industries for example, the broadcast media, companies‟ main source of new employees tends to be people who are already employed by competing firms - OFS. Doesnt tell us why cos do not hire employees during their non-compete contract period

(C) Most companies that require their employees to sign agreements not to compete are aware that these documents are not legally binding - We dont have to know about the previous company but the future company which doesnt hire the people during their non-compete period. Irrelevant

(D) Many people who have signed agreements not to compete are unwilling to renege on a promise by going to work for a competing firm - OFS. We are concerned about those people who sign the agreement but do go to other cos for employment

(E) Many companies consider their employees established relationships with clients and other people outside the company to be valuable company assets - I don't think any co would consider the relationship between its employees and their past cos as a valuable asset.

Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2014
Posts: 73
Re: Some companies in fields where skilled employees  [#permalink]

Show Tags

04 Apr 2015, 04:53
I dont understand how A.. According to agreement, the employee is signing it. So if the employer has to sue, it has to sue only the employee not the competing firm. But D states that the new employer will not hire the employee because they feel that the employee will not be reliable.. Please explain..
Retired Moderator
Status: On a mountain of skulls, in the castle of pain, I sit on a throne of blood.
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Posts: 304
Re: Some companies in fields where skilled employees  [#permalink]

Show Tags

04 Apr 2015, 09:13
sheolokesh wrote:
I dont understand how A.. According to agreement, the employee is signing it. So if the employer has to sue, it has to sue only the employee not the competing firm. But D states that the new employer will not hire the employee because they feel that the employee will not be reliable.. Please explain..

sheolokesh Option A never states that the new employer wont employ because the employee is unreliable. Option A only states that since the new employer doesnt want the hassle of a lawsuit or doesnt like the idea that its name will be dragged to a lawsuit, it wont hire the employee who has a binding contract.
Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2014
Posts: 73
Re: Some companies in fields where skilled employees  [#permalink]

Show Tags

05 Apr 2015, 02:37
AmoyV wrote:
sheolokesh wrote:
I dont understand how A.. According to agreement, the employee is signing it. So if the employer has to sue, it has to sue only the employee not the competing firm. But D states that the new employer will not hire the employee because they feel that the employee will not be reliable.. Please explain..

sheolokesh Option A never states that the new employer wont employ because the employee is unreliable. Option A only states that since the new employer doesnt want the hassle of a lawsuit or doesnt like the idea that its name will be dragged to a lawsuit, it wont hire the employee who has a binding contract.

I hope you misunderstood my explanation..
According to agreement, the employee is signing it. So if the employer has to sue, it has to sue only the employee not the competing firm. So competing firm dont have to worry about the lawsuit.. That makes option A not good..

Option D states that the new employer will not hire the employee because the employer feels that the employee will not be reliable as the employee has broke the promise..

This is my confusion..
Retired Moderator
Status: On a mountain of skulls, in the castle of pain, I sit on a throne of blood.
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Posts: 304
Re: Some companies in fields where skilled employees  [#permalink]

Show Tags

05 Apr 2015, 09:12
sheolokesh wrote:
AmoyV wrote:
sheolokesh wrote:
I dont understand how A.. According to agreement, the employee is signing it. So if the employer has to sue, it has to sue only the employee not the competing firm. But D states that the new employer will not hire the employee because they feel that the employee will not be reliable.. Please explain..

sheolokesh Option A never states that the new employer wont employ because the employee is unreliable. Option A only states that since the new employer doesnt want the hassle of a lawsuit or doesnt like the idea that its name will be dragged to a lawsuit, it wont hire the employee who has a binding contract.

I hope you misunderstood my explanation..
According to agreement, the employee is signing it. So if the employer has to sue, it has to sue only the employee not the competing firm. So competing firm dont have to worry about the lawsuit.. That makes option A not good..

Option D states that the new employer will not hire the employee because the employer feels that the employee will not be reliable as the employee has broke the promise..

This is my confusion..

D never states what you think it is stating. D says that the employees themselves will not go against their contract and volunteer to fulfill their contract.
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1524
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Some companies in fields where skilled employees  [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 Nov 2017, 22:08
Only A can gives an explanation.
D is confusing, but D, like C and E, intensifies the paradox.
Director
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Posts: 514
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Organizational Behavior
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Some companies in fields where skilled employees  [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Nov 2017, 05:31
souvik101990 wrote:
Some companies in fields where skilled employees are hard to find make signing an "agreement not to compete" a condition of employment. In such an agreement the employee promises not to go work for a competing firm for a set period after leaving his or her current employer. Courts are increasingly ruling that these agreements are not binding. Yet paradoxically, for people who signed such agreements when working for competing firms, many firms are unwilling to consider hiring them during the period covered by the agreement.

Which one of the following if true, most helps to resolve the paradox?

(A) Many companies will not risk having to become involved in lawsuits, even suits that they expect to have a favourable outcome.

(B) In some industries for example, the broadcast media, companies‟ main source of new employees tends to be people who are already employed by competing firms

(C) Most companies that require their employees to sign agreements not to compete are aware that these documents are not legally binding

(D) Many people who have signed agreements not to compete are unwilling to renege on a promise by going to work for a competing firm

(E) Many companies consider their employees established relationships with clients and other people outside the company to be valuable company assets

I thought 'courts are ruling that...' means court has annulled the law. This made me diverge from A. Can someone please explain what exactly does 'ruling..' means if that doesn't signify the annulment of the law passed ?
Thank you
_________________
------------------------------
"Trust the timing of your life"
Hit Kudus if this has helped you get closer to your goal, and also to assist others save time. Tq
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1524
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Some companies in fields where skilled employees  [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Nov 2017, 21:52
One seminar episode hosted by ninjagmat has once published this question. I do not know that gmat experts do care about Aristole questions on the mainstream.
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1524
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Some companies in fields where skilled employees  [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Nov 2017, 21:54
sheolokesh wrote:
I dont understand how A.. According to agreement, the employee is signing it. So if the employer has to sue, it has to sue only the employee not the competing firm. But D states that the new employer will not hire the employee because they feel that the employee will not be reliable.. Please explain..

D is a double-negative claim => D makes the paradox more complex.
You have already known the rest; all are eliminated by using POE>
Intern
Joined: 11 Mar 2015
Posts: 32
Re: Some companies in fields where skilled employees  [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Apr 2018, 22:41
I am still confuse. How is D intensifying the paradox? please, can anyone clear me?.
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1524
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Some companies in fields where skilled employees  [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Apr 2018, 14:03
mamun2013@gmail.com wrote:
I am still confuse. How is D intensifying the paradox? please, can anyone clear me?.

I am happy to send you some notes on this question.

D states that ") Many people who have signed agreements not to compete are unwilling to renege on a promise by going to work for a competing firm"

unwilling to renege = do not want to revoke = do not plan to cancel
D means "people who have signed agreements" not just sign, or agree, but also keep their promises. However, in the end, those people still fail to get rehired.
Re: Some companies in fields where skilled employees   [#permalink] 22 Apr 2018, 14:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by