6 ms·

With laws like these, I don't understand why anyone would take a job in Idaho. It seems like you're just setting yourself up for a bad situation

twobyfour 9y ago
Probably because you or your family are already established in Idaho? Grew up there? Elder relatives to care for? Spouse offered a hard to come by research position at a university?
- sverige 9y ago
  Socially/politically conservative? Hate cities? Love the outdoors? Like to live somewhere affordab.... oh shit, the Californians have arrived with their bags of money.
  - jonnycoder 9y ago
    Be careful you don't want to turn out like Oregon and attract all the rich hippies. Californian here who hunts in Idaho and it's my favorite state to visit. It still feels like the last secret place in America.
    - UnpossibleJim 9y ago
      Hunting in Idaho is great, but would you take a job and relocate there? Granted, I'm in Washington, which is somewhere in the middle, but we're moving towards California's view (just like everything else).
      - jonnycoder 9y ago
        Yes, but local friends and family is biggest preventer of moving.
      - phamilton 9y ago
        Boise is my back pocket destination. If/when I get sick of California nonsense, I'd move to Boise in a heartbeat. No family there, just like the low key outdoor culture and low cost of living.
        CydeWeys 9y ago
        Idaho is so culturally and socially conservative though, #3 behind just Wyoming and Utah. I don't see it being a good fit for many SVers for that reason. I wouldn't mind visiting but living there long term sounds rough.
        cweagans 9y ago
        The majority of Idaho is, but Boise is not. Source: I've lived in Boise all my life.
        phamilton 9y ago
        Some of us SVers find a socially conservative environment a breath of fresh air. It's a form of diversity not encountered much in SF.
        CydeWeys 9y ago
        Having your personal human rights respected is about a lot more than just what a place "feels" like. There are plenty of SVers who, if they go to Idaho, will be discriminated against in a variety of ways, whether it's because they're immigrants, or LGBTQ, or a person of color, or like weed, or need good health insurance, or might need an abortion, aren't religious, want good public education for their children, etc. None of this can be "made up for".
skrap 9y ago
I can think of a bunch of reasons why one might end up in such a situation, all of which point to systemic failures to protect the free movement of people: 1) Unfamiliarity with the law. People moving from states which protect the marketplace for employment from non-compete abuse (e.g. California) may not realize that such "agreements" even exist. I didn't, and was pretty surprised by them when I left CA after 7 years in SV. 2) Being required to sign a non-compete _after_ you've already begun the job, which is (AFAIK) legal many places, though I don't know about Idaho. 3) Asymmetric power in the "agreement", especially when larger employers (with legal departments) are involved. The scare quotes are there because the parties agreeing to the contract are not negotiating from comparable positions of strength, so I think the word "agreement" is a post-truth-type word. IMO, a free market won't remain free without public policy support. I guess Idaho prefers a different sort of arrangement. That's their choice. Welcome to my personal blacklist, Idaho.
- slaymaker1907 9y ago
  It's often not legal to require it after the fact as a requirement for continued employment since it is not a valid contract unless both parties receive something of value. I believe this is termed as consideration in contract law.
  - skrap 9y ago
    I believe in this case that "continued employment" is considered to be the benefit derived by the employee. Meaning "sign this or we will terminate you" is basically an ok thing to say, at least in some states.

twobyfour 9y ago

Probably because you or your family are already established in Idaho? Grew up there? Elder relatives to care for? Spouse offered a hard to come by research position at a university?

sverige 9y ago
Socially/politically conservative? Hate cities? Love the outdoors? Like to live somewhere affordab.... oh shit, the Californians have arrived with their bags of money.
- jonnycoder 9y ago
  Be careful you don't want to turn out like Oregon and attract all the rich hippies. Californian here who hunts in Idaho and it's my favorite state to visit. It still feels like the last secret place in America.
  - UnpossibleJim 9y ago
    Hunting in Idaho is great, but would you take a job and relocate there? Granted, I'm in Washington, which is somewhere in the middle, but we're moving towards California's view (just like everything else).
    - jonnycoder 9y ago
      Yes, but local friends and family is biggest preventer of moving.
    - phamilton 9y ago
      Boise is my back pocket destination. If/when I get sick of California nonsense, I'd move to Boise in a heartbeat. No family there, just like the low key outdoor culture and low cost of living.
      - CydeWeys 9y ago
        Idaho is so culturally and socially conservative though, #3 behind just Wyoming and Utah. I don't see it being a good fit for many SVers for that reason. I wouldn't mind visiting but living there long term sounds rough.
        cweagans 9y ago
        The majority of Idaho is, but Boise is not. Source: I've lived in Boise all my life.
        phamilton 9y ago
        Some of us SVers find a socially conservative environment a breath of fresh air. It's a form of diversity not encountered much in SF.
        CydeWeys 9y ago
        Having your personal human rights respected is about a lot more than just what a place "feels" like. There are plenty of SVers who, if they go to Idaho, will be discriminated against in a variety of ways, whether it's because they're immigrants, or LGBTQ, or a person of color, or like weed, or need good health insurance, or might need an abortion, aren't religious, want good public education for their children, etc. None of this can be "made up for".

skrap 9y ago

I can think of a bunch of reasons why one might end up in such a situation, all of which point to systemic failures to protect the free movement of people: 1) Unfamiliarity with the law. People moving from states which protect the marketplace for employment from non-compete abuse (e.g. California) may not realize that such "agreements" even exist. I didn't, and was pretty surprised by them when I left CA after 7 years in SV. 2) Being required to sign a non-compete _after_ you've already begun the job, which is (AFAIK) legal many places, though I don't know about Idaho. 3) Asymmetric power in the "agreement", especially when larger employers (with legal departments) are involved. The scare quotes are there because the parties agreeing to the contract are not negotiating from comparable positions of strength, so I think the word "agreement" is a post-truth-type word. IMO, a free market won't remain free without public policy support. I guess Idaho prefers a different sort of arrangement. That's their choice. Welcome to my personal blacklist, Idaho.

slaymaker1907 9y ago
It's often not legal to require it after the fact as a requirement for continued employment since it is not a valid contract unless both parties receive something of value. I believe this is termed as consideration in contract law.
- skrap 9y ago
  I believe in this case that "continued employment" is considered to be the benefit derived by the employee. Meaning "sign this or we will terminate you" is basically an ok thing to say, at least in some states.