4 ms·
I'd prefer if they were just banned like in California. I struggle to believe the fact that California is the only place where non-competes are much harder to e
by anonymousDan 12y ago
I'd prefer if they were just banned like in California. I struggle to believe the fact that California is the only place where non-competes are much harder to enforce isn't a major contributor to the success of the tech (Silicon Valley) & film (Hollywood) industries. Even here in the UK, companies offering zero-hours contracts have started to try and impose non-competes.
- gnopgnip 12y agoWhat is a zero hours contract?
- patio11 12y agoAn employment relationship with an hourly employee which, unlike more typical employment relationships with hourly employees in the UK, does not guarantee a certain minimum number of hours of work available/assigned per week/month.
- Natsu 12y agoI'm okay with them, actually, but only as long as the company is still paying you the same wages. I think this condition should be a requirement. No pay == no non-compete. If they're not paying, they shouldn't be able to keep you out of the market, period. It's not a fair trade otherwise and just having a job in the first place is not even remotely conscionable as 'consideration' for a clause that prevents you from working.