4 ms·
On the other hand, you work at a company for most of your professional life, and become an expert in a field you love. One day you are no longer employed for so
by elmigranto 10y ago
On the other hand, you work at a company for most of your professional life, and become an expert in a field you love. One day you are no longer employed for some reason, but due to non-compete there is no way to get a job you want, since your expertise is somewhat niche. So you are forced to build websites or sell coffee for two years. Or drop your life in US and work some other place.
If the person from your quantum computer example gets fired with non-compete, it would mean being forced out of he field with 100% certainty. Quite a leverage for a company.
In my opinion, there is still enough stuff out there benefiting corps over employees even if non-competes go away.
- greglindahl 10y agoWell, the counter-example is that the tech industry in California completely collapsed because... oh, wait, we're doing OK.
- pmontra 10y agoAccording to other posts here, CA banned non competes some 150 years ago.
- throw_away_777 10y agoThe post you were replying to was sarcastic. The point is that if non-competes really were essential to companies, you would expect to see that reflected in CA. Instead the most notable thing is CA has higher salaries.
- sjg007 10y agoTake the job and let them sue. Scotus won't enforce a noncompete.
- greglindahl 10y agoNon-competes are successfully enforced (outside CA) all of the time. Just take a look at the tech press, there are quite a few articles about it.
- codeonfire 10y agoNon-compete lawsuits are typically only worth it for VP level people who have strategic secrets. No one cares about or sues 99.9% of workers who go work somewhere else.
- greglindahl 10y agoI agree that when it hits the news it's generally a lawsuit against a VP, but you have no idea how many times lawyers send nasty letters, which are pretty effective.
- codeonfire 10y agoYep, letters cost almost nothing to send. Almost all employees have nothing to worry about for one reason. The corp will not go ahead with a lawsuit because the employee will almost always have no money or assets to take. It's amazing how pathological corporate behavior becomes when one views it from the money perspective.
- ghaff 10y agoBut there's a chilling effect. For lots of potential employers, the existence of a non-compete that might be litigated is a complete non-starter. I worked for a small company and I know for a fact we passed on at least one person who had a non-compete that was unlikely to be litigated but it just wasn't worth the risk.
- jacalata 10y agoJimmy John's managed to enforce it on their employees for years http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7042112 http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7042112
- ams6110 10y agoUm... that story states that the clause was never actually enforced therefore there was no valid claim of harm.
- jacalata 10y agoGood point, that wasn't the best article for my point! There are no specific lawsuits fighting the non-compete, however in the years following that case several states decided that the harm actually is caused simply by making employees sign the non-compete, and the company no longer has one.
- walshemj 10y agoso go work for a company in CA