4 ms·

Most non-competes aren't enforcable and employers know this. They exist to bully people into submission – in the case of the article, Law360 bullied the journal

by mstade 11y ago

Most non-competes aren't enforcable and employers know this. They exist to bully people into submission – in the case of the article, Law360 bullied the journalist, but also Reuters Thompson. They know they'd probably win if they challenged Law360 in court, but it's just not worth the cost to take the fight, when it's easier and cheaper to just fire what is essentially a low-level employee. I know a similar story. A person I know took a job with a tier one financial institution, knowing full well that the company they were previously employed with would cause a stir. Sure enough, upon starting the new job, the person in question received letters threatening legal action. This person is not easily scared, so simply ignored the letters. The new employer however received similar letters, and just as with the story in the article, they fired the employee simply because it wasn't worth taking the fight – there's always someone else they can employ. It's unethical, and I'm glad the AG looks into it.

walshemj 11y ago
Possibly a company's GC should be responsible for this - lets hope the AG gets some lawyer disbarred for this.
FussyZeus 11y ago
Seems like it wouldn't even be a fight, I'm not sure I'd want to work for an employer that would so readily throw me under the bus like that anyway.
- mstade 11y ago
  It's a cost/benefit situation. The cost of keeping the employee is very high in this case, even if they win the legal battle, and the benefit is probably unclear. The employee might be really great for the company, but it's difficult to quantify, and the moral cost to just let them go is low. It'll mean you and I will have a conversation like this about how crappy they are, but unless that conversation happens on the front page of WaPo or NYT it's just not worth caring about it. Haters gonna hate, and all that. Most employers would see it this way, I'm absolutely sure of it. Even if fighting for the employee means they'll sleep better at night, it still would've cost an arm and a leg with little to show for it other than a feel-good sensation. That's why it's so important for the AG to look into, and hopefully strike down on this shitty practice.

by mstade 11y ago

walshemj 11y ago

Possibly a company's GC should be responsible for this - lets hope the AG gets some lawyer disbarred for this.

FussyZeus 11y ago

Seems like it wouldn't even be a fight, I'm not sure I'd want to work for an employer that would so readily throw me under the bus like that anyway.

mstade 11y ago
It's a cost/benefit situation. The cost of keeping the employee is very high in this case, even if they win the legal battle, and the benefit is probably unclear. The employee might be really great for the company, but it's difficult to quantify, and the moral cost to just let them go is low. It'll mean you and I will have a conversation like this about how crappy they are, but unless that conversation happens on the front page of WaPo or NYT it's just not worth caring about it. Haters gonna hate, and all that. Most employers would see it this way, I'm absolutely sure of it. Even if fighting for the employee means they'll sleep better at night, it still would've cost an arm and a leg with little to show for it other than a feel-good sensation. That's why it's so important for the AG to look into, and hopefully strike down on this shitty practice.