3 ms·

I live in a "right to work" state. As a young corporate go getter, I signed a few non-compete contracts. In two cases, I was lured away by a competitor. In bot

I live in a "right to work" state. As a young corporate go getter, I signed a few non-compete contracts. In two cases, I was lured away by a competitor. In both cases, I tried (unsuccessfully) to hide where I was going. My old companies found out and tried to enforce the non-compete as punishment. Both times, my attorney filed the necessary paperwork, we showed up in the first case and my boss was threatening me outside in the lobby before we went in, telling me I'll never work in this city again. We go in and judge basically laughed at the company and tossed the case immediately. I don't remember the slew of cases he listed, but the message was clear. You cannot keep someone from working in their chosen field simply because you don't like your competitor. Since no laws were broken and I left with literally nothing but the suit I wore in on my first day - they didn't have any reason to keep me from working in my field. The other case went the same way a five or six years later.

mulmen 2y ago
Right to work is an anti-union policy. You probably mean at-will. Meaning your employment can be terminated “at will” by your employer or by you.
- reaperman 2y ago
  Your “or by you” is superfluous. Just-cause contracts in the only state which requires them for most general employees (Montana) only limit what the employer can do, not the employee. The vast majority of just cause contracts allow the employee to leave whenever they want. So “at will” also has to do the anecdote.
candiddevmike 2y ago
You're fortunate you could afford an attorney and successfully argue your case. Most of the folks under a non compete (like hourly restaurant workers!) probably can't do that.
- dmix 2y ago
  Are they ever really enforced? I've heard it's almost entirely an intimidation thing like cease and desist.
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    That's a form of enforcement, as it comes with the threat of legal action if the worker doesn't immediately quit their new job.
  - technothrasher 2y ago
    My wife was sued by the very large company she worked for under a non-compete after she went to a company that they saw as a competitor. They sued her in Texas (even though she worked for them in a Northeast state) and the two companies spent $500K battling it out before it even made it to discovery. We were out $20K personally just in legal fees to have an independent lawyer advising us. Neither company cared about her particularly, but were really fighting each other. When the old employer successfully got an injunction against her, then moved the case to Federal court, and laid out what the first year of the case was going to look like (while she was unable to work at all because of the injunction), she pulled the plug and settled with her old company with an incredibly one sided agreement, basically hamstringing her from working in the industry for the next 18 months. So, yes, they are sometimes enforced.
    - shishy 2y ago
      What line of work was she in? How awful
      - technothrasher 2y ago
        Product management
    - dmix 2y ago
      Jeez those two companies must have really hated each other. That sort of legal investment is usually a personal thing by CEOs as much as about business.
_alex_ 2y ago
I thought right-to-work is an antiunion mechanism?
- thomascgalvin 2y ago
  Right to work is 100% anti-union. In reality, it's "the right to work without any protections." The idea used to sell it is that you don't owe your employer any loyalty, and they don't owe you any loyalty; either of you can walk away at any time. In reality, this creates a completely asymmetric power dynamic. You can be fired at any time, for any reason, which means you have little power to advocate for better compensation, safer working conditions, and so on.
  - bhhaskin 2y ago
    That's not what right to work is at all. What you are describing is "at will" employment. Right to work means that you have a right to choose whether or not to be in a union. It effectively makes "union shops" illegal. Unions don't like it because it makes them less effective.
    - JoshTriplett 2y ago
      Which is to say, it's only anti-union if people don't actually feel they get value from being in the union. If people do feel they get value from being in the union they'll join the union.
      - NotACop182 2y ago
        But if the majority are in a union and those that don’t join reap all the benefits the union gains in contracts how is that fair for those who are supporting the union.
        pessimizer 2y ago
        In a "right-to-live" country, you would only have to pay taxes if the presidential candidate you voted for won.
reaperman 2y ago
Right-to-work laws only affect employees' relationship with a union if one exists in their workplace, not employee<->employer relationships. So “living in a right-to-work state” has no relevancy to your anecdote.
- DoesntMatter22 2y ago
  People seem to misunderstand 'right to work' states 99% of the time.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  I'm guessing OP probably meant an "at-will" employment state [0], which is rather more relevant. Those two terms are frequently confused, and I place a lot of the blame for that on the blandly Orwellian naming of "right to work" laws, which actually take away rights instead. Specifically, it outlaws any group of workers and employers from making a certain kind of voluntary agreement between one-another. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Unless they lived in Montana, they lived in an at-will state; it's reasonable shorthand to simply say the US is on the whole at-will.
  - reaperman 2y ago
    At-will is the counterpart to “just-cause”. “Just cause” contracts like the ones in Montana only bind the employer, not the employee. So this explanation still is irrelevant to the anecdote at hand.
  - burningChrome 2y ago
    You are correct. I meant "at-will", not "right to work"
    - reaperman 2y ago
      1) Can you explain specifically how living in an "at-will" state (or "right to work" state), assisted you in being able to ignore/defeat your non-compete agreement? 2) Do you think that if you were living in the only state that is not an "at-will" state (Montana) that the outcome would have been any different for you? How so, specifically? 3) Are you aware that many people living in an "at-will" state still have just-cause contracts? My dad did as a school administrator. Living in an "at-will" state does not mean that your employer is forced to use at-will employment contracts, it merely allows them to. I'm completely failing to see any connection at all between "at-will", "right-to-work", and non-compete agreements. While at this point I think you're simply wrong, I'm sincerely very open to learning what I might be missing here! For context: 49 states are "at will", which only means that employers can fire you for any (non-protected) reason or no reason at all. The only state that is not, Montana, has a law that employment is categorized as "just cause". Montana's just-cause employment law, unique among U.S. states, requires that after a probationary period, employers can only terminate employees for "good cause." This means that an employer must have a legitimate, job-related reason for firing an employee, such as poor performance, misconduct, or other actions that are detrimental to the business.
rtpg 2y ago
Serious q: what was the basis for that being thrown out? I am anti-"blanket uncompensated non-competes signed by everyone making over 60k", but it would be nice to know what particulars might have helped you out

mulmen 2y ago

Right to work is an anti-union policy. You probably mean at-will. Meaning your employment can be terminated “at will” by your employer or by you.

reaperman 2y ago
Your “or by you” is superfluous. Just-cause contracts in the only state which requires them for most general employees (Montana) only limit what the employer can do, not the employee. The vast majority of just cause contracts allow the employee to leave whenever they want. So “at will” also has to do the anecdote.

candiddevmike 2y ago

You're fortunate you could afford an attorney and successfully argue your case. Most of the folks under a non compete (like hourly restaurant workers!) probably can't do that.

dmix 2y ago
Are they ever really enforced? I've heard it's almost entirely an intimidation thing like cease and desist.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  That's a form of enforcement, as it comes with the threat of legal action if the worker doesn't immediately quit their new job.
- technothrasher 2y ago
  My wife was sued by the very large company she worked for under a non-compete after she went to a company that they saw as a competitor. They sued her in Texas (even though she worked for them in a Northeast state) and the two companies spent $500K battling it out before it even made it to discovery. We were out $20K personally just in legal fees to have an independent lawyer advising us. Neither company cared about her particularly, but were really fighting each other. When the old employer successfully got an injunction against her, then moved the case to Federal court, and laid out what the first year of the case was going to look like (while she was unable to work at all because of the injunction), she pulled the plug and settled with her old company with an incredibly one sided agreement, basically hamstringing her from working in the industry for the next 18 months. So, yes, they are sometimes enforced.
  - shishy 2y ago
    What line of work was she in? How awful
    - technothrasher 2y ago
      Product management
  - dmix 2y ago
    Jeez those two companies must have really hated each other. That sort of legal investment is usually a personal thing by CEOs as much as about business.

_alex_ 2y ago

I thought right-to-work is an antiunion mechanism?

thomascgalvin 2y ago
Right to work is 100% anti-union. In reality, it's "the right to work without any protections." The idea used to sell it is that you don't owe your employer any loyalty, and they don't owe you any loyalty; either of you can walk away at any time. In reality, this creates a completely asymmetric power dynamic. You can be fired at any time, for any reason, which means you have little power to advocate for better compensation, safer working conditions, and so on.
- bhhaskin 2y ago
  That's not what right to work is at all. What you are describing is "at will" employment. Right to work means that you have a right to choose whether or not to be in a union. It effectively makes "union shops" illegal. Unions don't like it because it makes them less effective.
  - JoshTriplett 2y ago
    Which is to say, it's only anti-union if people don't actually feel they get value from being in the union. If people do feel they get value from being in the union they'll join the union.
    - NotACop182 2y ago
      But if the majority are in a union and those that don’t join reap all the benefits the union gains in contracts how is that fair for those who are supporting the union.
      - pessimizer 2y ago
        In a "right-to-live" country, you would only have to pay taxes if the presidential candidate you voted for won.

reaperman 2y ago

Right-to-work laws only affect employees' relationship with a union if one exists in their workplace, not employee<->employer relationships. So “living in a right-to-work state” has no relevancy to your anecdote.

DoesntMatter22 2y ago
People seem to misunderstand 'right to work' states 99% of the time.
Terr_ 2y ago
I'm guessing OP probably meant an "at-will" employment state [0], which is rather more relevant. Those two terms are frequently confused, and I place a lot of the blame for that on the blandly Orwellian naming of "right to work" laws, which actually take away rights instead. Specifically, it outlaws any group of workers and employers from making a certain kind of voluntary agreement between one-another. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
- tptacek 2y ago
  Unless they lived in Montana, they lived in an at-will state; it's reasonable shorthand to simply say the US is on the whole at-will.
- reaperman 2y ago
  At-will is the counterpart to “just-cause”. “Just cause” contracts like the ones in Montana only bind the employer, not the employee. So this explanation still is irrelevant to the anecdote at hand.
- burningChrome 2y ago
  You are correct. I meant "at-will", not "right to work"
  - reaperman 2y ago
    1) Can you explain specifically how living in an "at-will" state (or "right to work" state), assisted you in being able to ignore/defeat your non-compete agreement? 2) Do you think that if you were living in the only state that is not an "at-will" state (Montana) that the outcome would have been any different for you? How so, specifically? 3) Are you aware that many people living in an "at-will" state still have just-cause contracts? My dad did as a school administrator. Living in an "at-will" state does not mean that your employer is forced to use at-will employment contracts, it merely allows them to. I'm completely failing to see any connection at all between "at-will", "right-to-work", and non-compete agreements. While at this point I think you're simply wrong, I'm sincerely very open to learning what I might be missing here! For context: 49 states are "at will", which only means that employers can fire you for any (non-protected) reason or no reason at all. The only state that is not, Montana, has a law that employment is categorized as "just cause". Montana's just-cause employment law, unique among U.S. states, requires that after a probationary period, employers can only terminate employees for "good cause." This means that an employer must have a legitimate, job-related reason for firing an employee, such as poor performance, misconduct, or other actions that are detrimental to the business.

rtpg 2y ago

Serious q: what was the basis for that being thrown out? I am anti-"blanket uncompensated non-competes signed by everyone making over 60k", but it would be nice to know what particulars might have helped you out