Federal judge partially blocks U.S. ban on noncompetes ( www.npr.org )

PostnataleAbtreibung , 6 days ago

I actually like noncompetes. Your company has to compensate you full salary and educational courses including travel costs for the time of this noncompete agreement, which is actually quite nice.

Edit: of course that is the rule in Europe. I don’t know about the situation in pro work slavery us.

seang96 , 6 days ago

Its non compete but without any benefit to the employee.

fmstrat , 6 days ago

To be more specific than the other responder, a noncompete does not include training. You could hire a senior staff member who is already experienced and include a noncompete. There is very little regulation. If it was tied to training for a set time, it makes sense. Unfortunately in the US, it usually doesn't.

jo3shmoo , 6 days ago

If it worked that way in the US then that would be sensibly pro-worker while allowing the existing employer to defend their intellectual property and investments in employees.

The reality is I have a 2 year noncompete that simply prevents me from working for competitors within 50 miles of any of my job sites unless I want to open myself up to a lawsuit. If I left today, I'd have to travel way further to get to an acceptable location, but would certainly not be receiving any compensation for that hassle from my previous employer. The elimination of noncompetes would be a huge boon to me and my colleagues, but this sort of court shenanigans is why I said I'd wait to be excited until it actually took effect.

Pika , 5 days ago (edited 5 days ago)

Honestly I think instead of banning non-competes they should just make it a hard requirement that a non-compete must be X percentage(no smaller then 30 or 40%) of your salary per year for the non-compete. Which in my opinion is fair because the entire point of a non-compete because you know information that a competitor could use that would give them a financial advantage so it makes sense that they would have to pay for your silence that you're not going to give that information away. If a company is saying they're not willing to pay that money that means the information you know isn't enough for them to care about so a non-compete shouldn't be in place in the first place

Like I've seen it non-compete clauses for web designers, which I find absolutely fucking ridiculous because there is little nothing that a web developer should be able to learn about a company that would financially harm it by going elsewhere, it's clear in those cases that those complete clauses are exclusively there as a trap to try to make it so their devs don't leave. The arguments those companies use is that there's financial incentive for that compromise. So a "well yeah you can do non-competes but they must be paid" will more or less blow their entire argument out of the water.

Personally I think if something similar like that gets implemented, you'll see a lot of the jobs that currently have a non-compete as part of their onboarding process will magically lose that as a requirement

phoneymouse , 6 days ago

This is about the US, but you knew that before you made your comment