News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by drawkbox on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @01:48AM (#12794162)
An NDA would suffice in that case.

Not being able to work work in the same field for up to 2 years (non-compete) and not disclosing internal ip, processes, etc when you go work at another company (NDA) in the field are much different.

Preventing someone from working in a field and not disclosing or sharing secrets/ip are two different animals.

NDAs are useful and I use them myself when contractors work with us, but non-competes create a very master/slave type of relationship, ownership of someone's skill that they need to work.

Paid non-competes are something that isn't as bad but non paid non-competes are horrible for the little guy and really a form of ownership that really goes against 'pro-business' ideals for smaller companies trying to compete while seemingly being 'pro-business' for the company doling out non-competes (big fish).

Contractors can't be told where to work, how to work or times to work, why are we allowing companies to tell skilled workers what they can and can't work on after the contract is up aside from what is under NDA?

Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by Gibbon1 on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @03:12AM (#12794509)
My first exposure to non-competes was from a guy I did some work for. He was a network firmware/driver guy back in the 80's/90's. Took a six month contract with a European company. After the contract ended his recruiter got him another gig. When the original company found out they threatened to sue him. Because they said he had signed a five year non-compete.
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by walshemj on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @06:40AM (#12795386)
5 years lol no way is that enforceable