5 ms·
I just signed one of these ridiculous clauses because pretty much everyone is just slapping this into their contracts now. Law needs to catch up on this one an
by laichzeit0 10y ago
I just signed one of these ridiculous clauses because pretty much everyone is just slapping this into their contracts now.
Law needs to catch up on this one and fast. I like the idea of making non-compete enforceable only if you can prove malicious intent. Similar to how tax works. If onus is on the tax payer to prove that if you buy something and sell it at profit you must prove that the _intention_ was not to turn a profit if you want to pay capital gains tax and not income tax on the profit.
Except the burden on proof must be skewed in favor of the employee and the proof of intent needs to sit with the employer if they want to enforce. E.g. If I go to market and get an offer (say at some competitor), you have first right of refusal to give me a counter. If you refuse to counter you cannot enforce your non-compete. This is fair imho. Lots of problems regarding "trade secrets" etc. but the law should be highly weighted towards the idea of "innocent by until proven guilty" for the employee.
- greglindahl 10y agoMove to California, or draw a line through it and see what happens.
- driverdan 10y agoYou should have refused to sign it.