3 ms·
What's strange to me is how people, particularly those in California, think that banning non-competes were somehow a California idea or that CA is the only stat
by rsj_hn 5y ago
What's strange to me is how people, particularly those in California, think that banning non-competes were somehow a California idea or that CA is the only state that does that. Yes banning non-competes is one of the things CA got right. People who complain are concerned about the things it got wrong. The idea that if you want non-competes then you must also accept insane regulatory burdens isn't really tenable when you look at the other states that ban non-competes and don't suffer from the same problems as California. There are low-regulation red states like Montana, Oklahoma, and North Dakota that have the same non-compete bans that CA has and many other states such as Utah and Texas place severe limits on them, whereas there are high-regulation states such as Massachusetts that allow non-competes.
Please don't try to turn the non-compete issue into a california good-or-bad issue because it's just not a california thing.
- burntsushi 5y agoNote that MA somewhat recently passed legislation that more tightly limits the power of non-compete agreement: https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2018/08/articles/non-competition-covenants/new-massachusetts-law-limits-non-compete/ https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2018/08/articles/non-...
- rsj_hn 5y agoI didn't know that -- it's good news. From a free market point of view, you obviously don't want to restrain trade, so that is the right-wing justification for bans. The left wing justification would be about increasing the power of labor. For both right and left leaning states, there seems to be an ongoing battle about non-compete agreements, and there is no reason for the pro-compete side to frame this as purely a left or right issue as there are allies to be had on from all sides of the political spectrum.