4 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoThat’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 agoYes, 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.