3 ms·

> since 1872 I knew California had banned them but I though it had happened a few decades ago at most.

by 77pt77 8y ago

twblalock 8y ago
I can't find any historical reason noncompetes were banned. I assume it happened because California was a new state and people coming there to work did not want to get stuck with the first employer they happened to end up with. There also would not have been a heavily established business lobby with enough power to prevent a ban, as there was on the east coast. California was writing a new legal code, so there was not an established precedent of noncompete agreements in state law. If noncompetes hadn't been banned when California was such a young state, they probably never would have been. It was a time when a lot of things lined up to make it possible.
- currymj 8y ago
  It wasn't a conscious choice -- they were drafting their laws from a set of model statutes called the Field Code and simply didn't even think about changing the provision. Interestingly, this also happened in North Dakota. https://www.noncompetereport.com/2013/01/north-dakota-non-compete-law-shares-history-with-california/ https://www.noncompetereport.com/2013/01/north-dakota-non-co...
  - twblalock 8y ago
    Excellent, this is great information that is difficult to find!
  - njarboe 8y ago
    Interesting fact filled article with an obvious employer bias slipping in at the end. "Employers wishing to protect themselves from unfair competition in North Dakota should tread carefully." It would be great to get these laws prohibitions of non-competes in more states. It is one of the main reasons I still live in the high cost of living/high taxed state of California.
    - currymj 8y ago
      Yeah, I think the blog is written by lawyers who represent employers and/or draft noncompetes. Massachusetts recently almost banned them, California style, in response to the narrative that the Route 128 tech corridor could have been Silicon Valley were it not for enforceable noncompetes. The law was heavily watered down once industry lobbyists (especially from all the biotech companies) got done with it. Still, it is a big improvement over the status quo. It limits time to one year, requires 50% compensation during the time when you can't work, and bans the most egregious abuses (noncompetes for minimum wage employees and so on).
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
California uses the XKCD cooking[1] method of banning things. Sometimes they get it right. [1] https://xkcd.com/720/ https://xkcd.com/720/
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  California doesn't ban that much, for instance while I can't buy a 100 round drum magazine, I can buy liquor at the grocery store on a Sunday.

> since 1872 I knew California had banned them but I though it had happened a few decades ago at most.

by 77pt77 8y ago

> since 1872 I knew California had banned them but I though it had happened a few decades ago at most.

I can't find any historical reason noncompetes were banned. I assume it happened because California was a new state and people coming there to work did not want to get stuck with the first employer they happened to end up with. There also would not have been a heavily established business lobby with enough power to prevent a ban, as there was on the east coast. California was writing a new legal code, so there was not an established precedent of noncompete agreements in state law. If noncompetes hadn't been banned when California was such a young state, they probably never would have been. It was a time when a lot of things lined up to make it possible.

currymj 8y ago
It wasn't a conscious choice -- they were drafting their laws from a set of model statutes called the Field Code and simply didn't even think about changing the provision. Interestingly, this also happened in North Dakota. https://www.noncompetereport.com/2013/01/north-dakota-non-compete-law-shares-history-with-california/ https://www.noncompetereport.com/2013/01/north-dakota-non-co...
- twblalock 8y ago
  Excellent, this is great information that is difficult to find!
- njarboe 8y ago
  Interesting fact filled article with an obvious employer bias slipping in at the end. "Employers wishing to protect themselves from unfair competition in North Dakota should tread carefully." It would be great to get these laws prohibitions of non-competes in more states. It is one of the main reasons I still live in the high cost of living/high taxed state of California.
  - currymj 8y ago
    Yeah, I think the blog is written by lawyers who represent employers and/or draft noncompetes. Massachusetts recently almost banned them, California style, in response to the narrative that the Route 128 tech corridor could have been Silicon Valley were it not for enforceable noncompetes. The law was heavily watered down once industry lobbyists (especially from all the biotech companies) got done with it. Still, it is a big improvement over the status quo. It limits time to one year, requires 50% compensation during the time when you can't work, and bans the most egregious abuses (noncompetes for minimum wage employees and so on).

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

California uses the XKCD cooking[1] method of banning things. Sometimes they get it right. [1] https://xkcd.com/720/ https://xkcd.com/720/

Gibbon1 8y ago
California doesn't ban that much, for instance while I can't buy a 100 round drum magazine, I can buy liquor at the grocery store on a Sunday.