3 ms·
100% agree. I think a disproportionate number of the people on this site work in high paying, high demand fields and it gives us a kind of warped view of what t
by superfrank 8y ago
100% agree. I think a disproportionate number of the people on this site work in high paying, high demand fields and it gives us a kind of warped view of what the job market is like.
Anecdotally, I know someone who had a non-compete clause in their hiring contract to work as the desk attendant at a hotel, in California none the less. This is basically a minimum wage job in a state where non-competes are illegal statewide.
Sure, my friend could have asked for it to be removed, but that would mean delaying the hiring process and extra work for the hiring manager who now has to go through the legal team to make any changes to the contract. When there are 20 other equally qualified candidates, why would the hotel waste their time? It makes more sense for the hotel to just find someone else who is willing to sign the illegal contract.
- ams6110 8y agoAnd why would the hotel ever waste their time and legal resources enforcing a non-compete on a minimum wage desk clerk when they can just hire another one tomorrow? Non-competes in that situation are empty threats to keep workers who don't know any better from quitting.
- eropple 8y agoI agree that they're empty threats in the general case. They should be banned to protect workers from the off chance that somebody decides to follow through. Explicit, not implicit.
- superfrank 8y agoOh, I totally agree it's an empty threat, but many workers don't know that. It's kind of fucked up though that putting something obviously unenforceable in a hiring contract isn't being punished. Either the worker ignores it, knowing there's nothing the company can do, or they take it seriously and are afraid to quit to go to a competitor. It's pretty much no lose for the company though.