3 ms·

The final paycheck has to be given. They can be sued for not giving you money you actually worked for. And most non-competes are unenforceable as it prevents p

by bena 8y ago

The final paycheck has to be given. They can be sued for not giving you money you actually worked for. And most non-competes are unenforceable as it prevents people from making a living.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
You'd have to be in a position to sue anybody. Which working-class folks definitely are not. No suit is worthwhile for a few hundred bucks anyway - but that much money matters a lot to an individual working paycheck to paycheck. As usual, there's a system in place and lofty rules about 'right to work' but it functions only for the well-off. The entitled if you will.
- twblalock 8y ago
  "Right to work" typically refers to laws that prevent union membership being a requirement to work at certain employers. I don't think that's what you mean here.
  - pseudalopex 8y ago
    Requiring union membership is illegal in the US. "Right to work" laws allow non-members not to pay for representation that federal law requires the union to provide.
- bena 8y ago
  By the time it gets to court, it's no longer a few hundred bucks. And even if you take it to small claims, you can get the defendant to pay the costs if they lose. And they will lose. Because withholding pay is kind of illegal. The vacation/sick pay issue is more of a grey issue as it's mostly a matter of company policy than any legal issue.
  - infinite8s 8y ago
    Payout of unused vacation time is also a matter of state law (for example, it's required in California)
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    the awarding of court costs is very rare in the usa.
pnw_hazor 8y ago
Outside of California most non-competes are enforceable as long as they have reasonable time limits and reasonable geographic limits. Some courts have found that North America is a reasonable geographic limit. One year is about the max time limit. The deets may vary around the edges depending on the state (excluding CA which has strong anti-non-compete) /* I used to practice employee-side employment law.

by bena 8y ago

The final paycheck has to be given. They can be sued for not giving you money you actually worked for. And most non-competes are unenforceable as it prevents people from making a living.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

You'd have to be in a position to sue anybody. Which working-class folks definitely are not. No suit is worthwhile for a few hundred bucks anyway - but that much money matters a lot to an individual working paycheck to paycheck. As usual, there's a system in place and lofty rules about 'right to work' but it functions only for the well-off. The entitled if you will.

twblalock 8y ago
"Right to work" typically refers to laws that prevent union membership being a requirement to work at certain employers. I don't think that's what you mean here.
- pseudalopex 8y ago
  Requiring union membership is illegal in the US. "Right to work" laws allow non-members not to pay for representation that federal law requires the union to provide.
bena 8y ago
By the time it gets to court, it's no longer a few hundred bucks. And even if you take it to small claims, you can get the defendant to pay the costs if they lose. And they will lose. Because withholding pay is kind of illegal. The vacation/sick pay issue is more of a grey issue as it's mostly a matter of company policy than any legal issue.
- infinite8s 8y ago
  Payout of unused vacation time is also a matter of state law (for example, it's required in California)
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  the awarding of court costs is very rare in the usa.

pnw_hazor 8y ago

Outside of California most non-competes are enforceable as long as they have reasonable time limits and reasonable geographic limits. Some courts have found that North America is a reasonable geographic limit. One year is about the max time limit. The deets may vary around the edges depending on the state (excluding CA which has strong anti-non-compete) /* I used to practice employee-side employment law.