Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by greglindahl on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @02:19AM
(#12794294)
Non-competes are successfully enforced (outside CA) all of the time. Just take a look at the tech press, there are quite a few articles about it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by codeonfire on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @02:32AM
(#12794338)
Non-compete lawsuits are typically only worth it for VP level people who have strategic secrets. No one cares about or sues 99.9% of workers who go work somewhere else.
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by greglindahl on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @02:43AM
(#12794393)
I agree that when it hits the news it's generally a lawsuit against a VP, but you have no idea how many times lawyers send nasty letters, which are pretty effective.
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by codeonfire on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @05:21AM
(#12795027)
Yep, letters cost almost nothing to send. Almost all employees have nothing to worry about for one reason. The corp will not go ahead with a lawsuit because the employee will almost always have no money or assets to take. It's amazing how pathological corporate behavior becomes when one views it from the money perspective.
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by ghaff on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @09:19AM
(#12796193)
But there's a chilling effect. For lots of potential employers, the existence of a non-compete that might be litigated is a complete non-starter. I worked for a small company and I know for a fact we passed on at least one person who had a non-compete that was unlikely to be litigated but it just wasn't worth the risk.