5 ms·

I lived in Alabama for 4 years or so and at least at the time (I have no idea if it's changed since I left), their non-compete situation was garbage. They were

I lived in Alabama for 4 years or so and at least at the time (I have no idea if it's changed since I left), their non-compete situation was garbage. They were valid and enforceable even if you got laid off or fired. One of my friends' mother got laid off in the 2008 financial crisis from Bellsouth (or AT&T, I don't recall if the (re)merger was finished yet). She was told she couldn't work for any other telecom in the state for at least 18 months. She ended up going to stay with family in another state for that time so she could find another job, even though her husband and her son were in AL. It was a hard period for them. I've had a hatred of non-competes since for the most part. If you (a company) are afraid of losing key talent, maybe you should actively try to retain it rather than turning your company into a prison.

jonnycomputer 5y ago
Non-competes undermine one of the main ideas underpinning capitalism: the free flow of labor. Otherwise, you're just a damned serf.
- etothepii 5y ago
  I wonder if the "I have read the Terms and Conditions" checkbox has some responsibility for this. I'm constantly amazed at how many people don't seem to understand that a contract is a negotiation. Most people wouldn't dream of taking a job that didn't pay enough financially, but agree to jobs with awful terms and conditions because they didn't read. We are all used to contracts that are too long to understand.
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    Libertarians would permit people to sell themselves into slavery by contract. Another reason why libertarianism take too far is pure madness, and infantile fantasy.
- sonotathrowaway 5y ago
  That’s a feature, not a bug.
brightball 5y ago
In right to work states, non-competes can’t prevent you from earning a living.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  De jure, maybe, but de facto it most certainly can, as the OP's anecdote attests to.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    My business law professor said to just ignore non-competes. Everyone knows the judge will toss it if it's preventing you from earning a living. Any state that allows non-competes has statutory provisions for earning a living. If not, this is part of the common law in every jurisdiction. Non-competes cannot conflict with the public policy. Except for very few instances in which the previous company must show that the competition produces actual harm, they are completely unenforceable. Moreover, they must be geographically limited. The Alabama, entire state ban, is likely overly large. A citizen of Alabama has a right to work in Alabama. Maybe they can't work in Birmingham for a year or two. But they must be able to work elsewhere in the state. This one could safely be ignored. One thing I will note is that some companies want you to sign a contract upon leaving not to compete. Usually these are for some amount of money. These can be enforceable. However, they can't required for you to leave (although the bonus can be conditional on it). Don't sign these. They're dumb. Companies know this too. As do hiring companies. For some reason though (and companies don't want you wisening up), many employees fear their old employer and choose not to apply, get scared, and run away. This is toxic, and it ought to be prosecuted IMO, but in the meantime, you should ignore it. Source: https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2021/03/everything-you-need-to-know-and-probably-dont-about-covenants-not-to-compete-alabama https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2021/03/everyt...
    - decebalus1 5y ago
      > My business law professor said to just ignore non-competes. Everyone knows the judge will toss it if it's preventing you from earning a living. 'earning a living' may be a bit ambiguous. What does that actually mean? Would a judge be able to uphold the noncompete just because you would be technically able to take a job at the Amazon warehouse and earn minimum wage - hence 'a living'? Which is bullshit, btw. But just asking.
ARandomerDude 5y ago
Unless I were really a big deal, I probably would have just gone to another telecom anyway. They have to notice you're at the other company, then go through the trouble of suing you. For relatively low-level workers, I doubt it'd be worth the trouble. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > They have to notice you're at the other company, then go through the trouble of suing you. For relatively low-level workers, I doubt it'd be worth the trouble. IIRC, No, they just let the other company know about the non-compete, then suggest that once the new employer has that notice, continuing to employ you constitutes tortious interference for which the old employer might sue the new one. Then the new company decides whether you are worth a possible lawsuit. For relatively low-level workers, it's usually not worth the trouble — for the new employer.

jonnycomputer 5y ago

Non-competes undermine one of the main ideas underpinning capitalism: the free flow of labor. Otherwise, you're just a damned serf.

etothepii 5y ago
I wonder if the "I have read the Terms and Conditions" checkbox has some responsibility for this. I'm constantly amazed at how many people don't seem to understand that a contract is a negotiation. Most people wouldn't dream of taking a job that didn't pay enough financially, but agree to jobs with awful terms and conditions because they didn't read. We are all used to contracts that are too long to understand.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  Libertarians would permit people to sell themselves into slavery by contract. Another reason why libertarianism take too far is pure madness, and infantile fantasy.
sonotathrowaway 5y ago
That’s a feature, not a bug.

brightball 5y ago

In right to work states, non-competes can’t prevent you from earning a living.

lostcolony 5y ago
De jure, maybe, but de facto it most certainly can, as the OP's anecdote attests to.
- iammisc 5y ago
  My business law professor said to just ignore non-competes. Everyone knows the judge will toss it if it's preventing you from earning a living. Any state that allows non-competes has statutory provisions for earning a living. If not, this is part of the common law in every jurisdiction. Non-competes cannot conflict with the public policy. Except for very few instances in which the previous company must show that the competition produces actual harm, they are completely unenforceable. Moreover, they must be geographically limited. The Alabama, entire state ban, is likely overly large. A citizen of Alabama has a right to work in Alabama. Maybe they can't work in Birmingham for a year or two. But they must be able to work elsewhere in the state. This one could safely be ignored. One thing I will note is that some companies want you to sign a contract upon leaving not to compete. Usually these are for some amount of money. These can be enforceable. However, they can't required for you to leave (although the bonus can be conditional on it). Don't sign these. They're dumb. Companies know this too. As do hiring companies. For some reason though (and companies don't want you wisening up), many employees fear their old employer and choose not to apply, get scared, and run away. This is toxic, and it ought to be prosecuted IMO, but in the meantime, you should ignore it. Source: https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2021/03/everything-you-need-to-know-and-probably-dont-about-covenants-not-to-compete-alabama https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2021/03/everyt...
  - decebalus1 5y ago
    > My business law professor said to just ignore non-competes. Everyone knows the judge will toss it if it's preventing you from earning a living. 'earning a living' may be a bit ambiguous. What does that actually mean? Would a judge be able to uphold the noncompete just because you would be technically able to take a job at the Amazon warehouse and earn minimum wage - hence 'a living'? Which is bullshit, btw. But just asking.

ARandomerDude 5y ago

Unless I were really a big deal, I probably would have just gone to another telecom anyway. They have to notice you're at the other company, then go through the trouble of suing you. For relatively low-level workers, I doubt it'd be worth the trouble. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> They have to notice you're at the other company, then go through the trouble of suing you. For relatively low-level workers, I doubt it'd be worth the trouble. IIRC, No, they just let the other company know about the non-compete, then suggest that once the new employer has that notice, continuing to employ you constitutes tortious interference for which the old employer might sue the new one. Then the new company decides whether you are worth a possible lawsuit. For relatively low-level workers, it's usually not worth the trouble — for the new employer.