3 ms·
This is probably one of the biggest reasons I'm unlikely to leave the state until other parts of the US make similar determinations. It boggles me that we allow
by d4mi3n 5y ago
This is probably one of the biggest reasons I'm unlikely to leave the state until other parts of the US make similar determinations. It boggles me that we allow employers to have so much control over an employees life after they have left said organization.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoWe almost had the same in Washington state until the big tech companies lobbied (i.e. bribed) corrupt politicians for the law to only apply to those earning under $100k. https://lni.wa.gov/workers-rights/workplace-policies/Non-Compete-Agreements https://lni.wa.gov/workers-rights/workplace-policies/Non-Com...
- labster 5y agoSo non-competes are only for people who can afford a house. I guess it makes sense to give up some freedom for the privilege of owning property.
- mateo1 5y agoThe reasoning obviously is to protect low earners from employers who abuse non-competes. Non-competes are not a complete insanity, as long as the workforce they apply to has (pragmatically, not just theoretically) the ability to chose where to work. And of course they have to acquire some transferable skills or knowledge thanks to their employment. These things are generally very unlikely to happen when the employee is a low earner.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoThe fact that California has no problem with pumping out innovation and globally important companies even with a total non compete ban shows that there is zero reason for any employer to have that additional power over an employee. I would even say the non compete ban contributes to CA’s success. To really drive home how much of an advantage employers have, even with a non compete ban, employers in California were found to be colluding to suppress employees’ wages. https://www.latimes.com/80014970-132.html https://www.latimes.com/80014970-132.html
- belval 5y agoFor all but some very egregious cases this will not be enforced. AWS lost a bunch of VP-level execs and they went to work at Microsoft... If they didn't use it against them they won't use it against anyone.
- d4mi3n 5y agoI agree, but it's still problematic. A couple concerns off the top of my head: 1. This can impact behavior of the labor force despite lack of enforcement. Not everyone can afford to pay a lawyer to review their employment contract, and not everyone will have the knowledge to know if such terms are applicable or enforceable to their situation. This causes fear and hesitancy which in turn drives behavior and decision making. 2. If you're unfortunate enough, there's nothing stopping a company from attempting to make an example out of you. Even knowing it's unlikely a former employer will come after you, why should individuals be forced to take on that risk to earn a living?
- xienze 5y agoYou really have to “be somebody” in order to have a non-compete enforced against you. If you’re like most people the company you left couldn’t care less where you go. Yes yes, there’s exceptions, but in general they’re rarely enforced.
- jandrese 5y agoBut if your old boss was a total dick and that's why you left then he might try to enforce it. Leaving yourself open to expensive legal action isn't smart. Even though they would likely lose the case (noncompetes are on shaky legal footing) you still lose many hours and legal fees fighting it.
- cosmodisk 5y agoEven being 'somebody' may not enforce it. A few years ago Salesforce hired so many execs from Microsoft that it looked like there's no end to it.