srussellkraft

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by srussellkraft 11y ago

   I agree with you that the box-checking cost me my job, and the decision was easy for Reuters. But the company now has a blanket policy in place not to hire from my former employer because of the non-compete. So other employees are now preve
2. 2.▲
   by srussellkraft 11y ago

   exactly - even the slightest threat of enforcement can have a chilling effect on employees, who are usually not in a position of power (to negotiate, go to court, risk their livelihood etc)
3. 3.▲
   by srussellkraft 11y ago

   one year
4. 4.▲
   by srussellkraft 11y ago

   The editors in the legal news department knew; that doesn't mean the corporate side knew or cared until Law360 sent its letter. I was let go because of the non-disclosure of the non-compete - I can assure you there was no other reason.
5. 5.▲
   by srussellkraft 11y ago

   Exactly, and most employees are never going to be in a position to push back, especially in a field like journalism, where people are happy just to have a job
6. 6.▲
   by srussellkraft 11y ago

   The way the non-compete is written could bar a Law360 employee from working at any news outlet that covers legal news, in any capacity. Getting a job in another field means switching careers.
7. 7.▲
   by srussellkraft 11y ago

   I later found out that other reporters had run into trouble when moving from Law360 to Reuters, but those were before my time. Law360 has had a non-compete since around 2011.