4 ms·

A little disappointing that it doesn't go as far as CA, but it's a good start (why the F do you even need a non-compete in the food or summer camp industries ??

• eli_gottlieb 8y ago
  > Don't most of them include a provision forcing the company to pay a share of your salary if they decide to activate it? Not in Massachusetts, that I've ever seen.
  • dudul 8y ago
    I'm in Mass and most of my past non-competes had this clause.
• arielweisberg 8y ago
  I have never seen that outside of finance. I think they are fine as long as the company is willing to give up something of similar value to get it.
  • s73v3r_ 8y ago
    They never are. And given that the company is usually the one making the demand, they get to define "similar value".
• s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "Don't most of them include a provision forcing the company to pay a share of your salary if they decide to activate it?" Almost none of them do that. That's one of the reasons why they're so shitty.
  • dudul 8y ago
    Interesting. My current non-compete mentions 50% of my salary at date of termination for a year, and I'm pretty sure my previous non-competes had similar provision. Maybe I only worked with mostly "ethical" companies.
    • s73v3r_ 8y ago
      That sounds incredibly shitty, though. You have to take a 50% pay cut and not be able to advance in your chosen field? Most people I know would struggle quite a bit with such a huge pay cut.
      • dudul 8y ago
        Oh don't hear me wrong, it is not a good deal at all. But at least it has a cost for the company if they decide to activate it. Not enough for me to make a living, but most likely enough for them to take a step back and think "does what this guy can do really justify the cost?".
      • ghaff 8y ago
        It wouldn't be great for a lot of people. I expect some here look at it and think "Ooh. I get paid 50% of my generous tech salary to work on my side project/travel the world for a year. Where do I sign up?" But the reality for many people is that they'd be taking a big pay cut to sit on the sidelines for a year which could be damaging both financially and professionally.
  • Latteland 8y ago
    Yeah, if enforcing a non compete meant they had to match oldcomput would be different
    • s73v3r_ 8y ago
      oldcomput? And I don't think that simply paying them their existing salary, or the salary at the last day is enough. I feel it should really hurt to enforce a non-compete, because you are saying that you do not want someone to be able to earn a living with their labor. That to me, no matter what your motivations are, is some degree of evil. I say it should be triple of the highest wage the person made during their tenure with the company, or the prevailing market wage, whichever is higher.
• ghaff 8y ago
  I have not personally ever had an issue with a non-compete but I've been directly told a couple of the largest firms in a particular consulting industry sector vigorously enforce non-competes to a degree that people basically take a year off if they want to go to a competitor or hang out their own shingle. In addition, as someone who worked for a small firm in the same space for a number of years, we wouldn't even consider someone who had an even vaguely relevant non-compete. It was just too much risk for a company our size. That said, I think the role of non-compete enforcement or not is overblown when talking about the relative success of different states in various technology areas. Certainly, Massachusetts is far more important than California in areas like biotech and pharma.
• rectang 8y ago
  > Out of curiosity though, has anybody ever faced an enforced non-compete? The U.S. legal system is happy to oblige as the arena in which their lawyers beat you to a penniless pulp. It doesn't matter whether their case is a crock.
• dunpeal 8y ago
  Yes. Amazon sued former employees, for example: https://www.geekwire.com/2017/business-personal-amazon-web-services-decides-enforce-non-compete-contracts/ https://www.geekwire.com/2017/business-personal-amazon-web-s...