5 ms·
One simple solution would be to require employers to pay at least the workers' prior base salary for the duration they wish to enforce the non-compete. I've hel
by mcbrown 11y ago
One simple solution would be to require employers to pay at least the workers' prior base salary for the duration they wish to enforce the non-compete. I've held senior positions where non-competes are to be expected, and that is always a standard term. Of course, the only reason it became a standard term is because people like me are represented by expensive lawyers who consistently demand it, and an Amazon warehouse worker isn't in the position to follow our lead. So the warehouse worker should be given the same protection by statute: if the employer wants to enforce a non-compete, they must do so affirmatively by paying the worker's salary (i.e. if they elect not to pay then the non-compete is automatically null and void).
Of course the odds of something like that making its way through the dysfunctional legislatures of 48 states is vanishingly low. But we can hope.
- rodgerd 11y ago> One simple solution would be to require employers to pay at least the workers' prior base salary for the duration they wish to enforce the non-compete. This is pretty much the standard in New Zealand employment law, and it seems crazy to me that people can (effectively) be denied a livelihood because they once worked one job.
- pdq 11y agoRight, the standard contract term is called 'consideration', meaning that for a contract to be valid and enforceable, each side must be giving up something of value as part of the transaction. There's a pretty good summary here: http://www.wolfbaldwin.com/Employment-Articles/Non-Compete-Covenants.shtml http://www.wolfbaldwin.com/Employment-Articles/Non-Compete-C...
- falcolas 11y agoWorth noting that continued employment is considered sufficient consideration for many such contract changes, in "at will" employment states.
- hwstar 11y agoThis is simply not true. It has nothing to do with at-will employment. It is state law. Some states require consideration separate from salary, some say continued employment is sufficient consideration. 49 out of 50 states recognize the doctrine of at-will employment. Only Montana uses just-cause instead (just like the rest of the developed world coincidentally).
- hwstar 11y agoIt could be legislated at the federal level, but that would be even harder as the legislators there are bought and paid for by the business lobby.