2 ms·
The 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
by mateo1 4y ago
The 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 4y 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