3 ms·

Let's not let Hawaii and Utah off the hook. It's great that software businesses are excluded from noncompete clauses in Hawaii, but it's still a problem when t

Let's not let Hawaii and Utah off the hook. It's great that software businesses are excluded from noncompete clauses in Hawaii, but it's still a problem when the local Jimmy John's can prevent its employees from working at Subway. Arguably it's worse in a place like Hawaii than in the continental US, because some noncompete are distance-limited, which becomes a problem when the state is nothing more than an island chain. Utah's one year limit is only acceptable in my mind if they require the company enforcing such agreement to pay the former employee for the time they can't work. Otherwise, a megacorp like Google can probably block one's employment in just about every technology-related field.

masklinn 9y ago
> Let's not let Hawaii and Utah off the hook. True, they're somewhat less bad than the others but they're by no means good. > Arguably it's worse in a place like Hawaii than in the continental US, because some noncompete are distance-limited, which becomes a problem when the state is nothing more than an island chain. In fact it's exactly the reasoning they used for the tech exemption. > Utah's one year limit is only acceptable in my mind if they require the company enforcing such agreement to pay the former employee for the time they can't work. True, the Utah bill does not require compensation for the duration of the agreement only that it can not exceed one year and employer liability (arbitration costs, attorney and court costs and actual damages) if an employee sues and the non-compete is found unenforceable.
- pmiller2 9y ago
  > In fact it's exactly the reasoning they used for the tech exemption. How does the same reasoning not apply to sandwich shops and nail salons? I would think it would apply even more so to those types of businesses, simply because the employees are paid so much less that relocating could easily prove prohibitive.

masklinn 9y ago

> Let's not let Hawaii and Utah off the hook. True, they're somewhat less bad than the others but they're by no means good. > Arguably it's worse in a place like Hawaii than in the continental US, because some noncompete are distance-limited, which becomes a problem when the state is nothing more than an island chain. In fact it's exactly the reasoning they used for the tech exemption. > Utah's one year limit is only acceptable in my mind if they require the company enforcing such agreement to pay the former employee for the time they can't work. True, the Utah bill does not require compensation for the duration of the agreement only that it can not exceed one year and employer liability (arbitration costs, attorney and court costs and actual damages) if an employee sues and the non-compete is found unenforceable.

pmiller2 9y ago
> In fact it's exactly the reasoning they used for the tech exemption. How does the same reasoning not apply to sandwich shops and nail salons? I would think it would apply even more so to those types of businesses, simply because the employees are paid so much less that relocating could easily prove prohibitive.