Re:Be careful before you sign a non-compete agreement
by rodgerd on Friday February 26, 2016 @01:43PM
(#11183146)
> One simple solution would be to require employers to pay at least the workers' prior base salary for the duration they wish to enforce the non-compete.
This is pretty much the standard in New Zealand employment law, and it seems crazy to me that people can (effectively) be denied a livelihood because they once worked one job.
Re:Be careful before you sign a non-compete agreement
by pdq on Friday February 26, 2016 @01:57PM
(#11183233)
Right, the standard contract term is called 'consideration', meaning that for a contract to be valid and enforceable, each side must be giving up something of value as part of the transaction.
There's a pretty good summary here:
http://www.wolfbaldwin.com/Employment-Articles/Non-Compete-C...
Re:Be careful before you sign a non-compete agreement
by falcolas on Friday February 26, 2016 @02:10PM
(#11183326)
Worth noting that continued employment is considered sufficient consideration for many such contract changes, in "at will" employment states.
Re:Be careful before you sign a non-compete agreement
by hwstar on Friday February 26, 2016 @09:25PM
(#11185766)
This is simply not true. It has nothing to do with at-will employment. It is state law. Some states require consideration separate from salary, some say continued employment is sufficient consideration. 49 out of 50 states recognize the doctrine of at-will employment. Only Montana uses just-cause instead (just like the rest of the developed world coincidentally).
Of course the odds of something like that making its way through the dysfunctional legislatures of 48 states is vanishingly low. But we can hope.