4 ms·

You're reading it backwards, re-read: "Only employees or independent contractors who earn more than the thresholds established by law can be held to non-compet

You're reading it backwards, re-read: "Only employees or independent contractors who earn more than the thresholds established by law can be held to non-competition agreements." [emphasis mine]

colejohnson66 4y ago
That's literally what GP said: NDAs are only enforceable if you make more than $100k/year (the threshold), and that a lot of MS employees make more than $100k.
- coderintherye 4y ago
  And GP is wrong, because they are reading it wrong. Apparently you are as well. Please re-read: "Only employees or independent contractors who earn more than the thresholds established by law can be held to non-competition agreements." Read it slowly. Repeat reading it again. It literally says the opposite of what you think it says. Anyone making > $101k/year "CAN BE HELD TO NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENTS", meaning anyone making > $101k/year does NOT get the benefit of this law. The benefit of this law is to protect people from being bound by non-competition agreements. If you can be held to a non-competition agreement then you are literally not protected by this law. There's a reason these laws are referred to as "low-wage" protectors. Try reading this article if you need further clarification: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/employee-benefits-compensation/1201408/in-colorado-low-wage-now-means-six-figures-for-non-competes https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/employee-benefits-compen...
  - colejohnson66 4y ago
    That’s literally what I said. I’ve read this thread a dozen times and I can’t see where I’m going wrong. I’m saying that one needs to make more than $100k for non-competes[a] to be valid. Which is exactly what you’ve quoted! I don’t know how to make that more clear! You’re reading us wrong. [a]: I said “NDA” in my upper comment, but I meant non-competes
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - coderintherye 4y ago
      Yes, I think you are correct that I was mis-reading the point you and GP were trying to make. Sounds like we are all in agreement that the WA law likely does not protect most technical employees of Microsoft.

You're reading it backwards, re-read: "Only employees or independent contractors who earn more than the thresholds established by law can be held to non-competition agreements." [emphasis mine]

colejohnson66 4y ago

That's literally what GP said: NDAs are only enforceable if you make more than $100k/year (the threshold), and that a lot of MS employees make more than $100k.

coderintherye 4y ago
And GP is wrong, because they are reading it wrong. Apparently you are as well. Please re-read: "Only employees or independent contractors who earn more than the thresholds established by law can be held to non-competition agreements." Read it slowly. Repeat reading it again. It literally says the opposite of what you think it says. Anyone making > $101k/year "CAN BE HELD TO NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENTS", meaning anyone making > $101k/year does NOT get the benefit of this law. The benefit of this law is to protect people from being bound by non-competition agreements. If you can be held to a non-competition agreement then you are literally not protected by this law. There's a reason these laws are referred to as "low-wage" protectors. Try reading this article if you need further clarification: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/employee-benefits-compensation/1201408/in-colorado-low-wage-now-means-six-figures-for-non-competes https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/employee-benefits-compen...
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  That’s literally what I said. I’ve read this thread a dozen times and I can’t see where I’m going wrong. I’m saying that one needs to make more than $100k for non-competes[a] to be valid. Which is exactly what you’ve quoted! I don’t know how to make that more clear! You’re reading us wrong. [a]: I said “NDA” in my upper comment, but I meant non-competes
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - coderintherye 4y ago
    Yes, I think you are correct that I was mis-reading the point you and GP were trying to make. Sounds like we are all in agreement that the WA law likely does not protect most technical employees of Microsoft.