To Compete Better, States Are Trying to Curb Noncompete Pacts

Re:To Compete Better, States Are Trying to Curb Noncompete P... by wildmusings on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @09:22PM (#11998884)

I used an extreme example to counter the argument that any such restriction is always unreasonable, which is what I was responding to.

But there are reasonable restrictions for lower-pay workers too. E.g. requiring that your secretary not work at your direct competitors for two years after leaving. Secretarial jobs at your competitors are probably a tiny fraction of the whole market for those jobs.

Replying here because I'm rate-limited: Because your secretary might know a great deal about your business strategy and plans.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:To Compete Better, States Are Trying to Curb Noncompete P... by xenadu02 on Wednesday June 29, 2016 @12:12AM (#11999444)

Executive non-compete agreements always include monetary compensation for the non-compete period.

Peon (aka almost everyone reading HN) non-competes almost never include any kind of compensation. Companies rarely pay above-market rates or offer to pay anything during the non-compete period. They basically slip it into the employment agreement because they can.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, don't you think? In the legal world it's called "consideration", as in courts often invalidate contractual provisions or whole contracts unless there is some kind of consideration, and especially when the balance of power is tilted.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:To Compete Better, States Are Trying to Curb Noncompete P... by raverbashing on Wednesday June 29, 2016 @04:56AM (#12000339)

This

The only acceptable non-compete is where they pay you to not work for a competitor.

This is how it works in banking

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:To Compete Better, States Are Trying to Curb Noncompete P... by Daishiman on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @11:07PM (#11999255)

I see no reason why the secretary example isn't complete overreach.

[ Parent | on HN ]