Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by elcct on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @05:08AM
(#12794983)
This is a good question. I think if you were offered better salary, the former company should either match it or let you take new contract.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by michaelmrose on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @06:11AM
(#12795240)
This is sensible but its a lot easier just to make non competes go away entirely.
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by elcct on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @06:30AM
(#12795327)
In the end if there is no compete clause in your contract, you can just not take it...
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by abjorn on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @12:41PM
(#12798007)
That might be okay for a software engineer who can likely find a different offer somewhere else without much trouble, but that's not going to be realistic for everybody.
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by RIMR on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @01:34PM
(#12798560)
That is a good strategy, but it will just cause unemployment to rise.
Though, I wouldn't mind keeping my own "non-termination agreement" on hand so that if I am asked to sign a non-compete, I can ask them to sign my contract too.
After all, if they think it's fair that I shouldn't be able to work for another company doing the same thing, it should be equally fair that they can't replace me with another worker doing the same thing.
So yeah, I'll sign your non-compete, so long as you agree that you cannot terminate me without invalidating it.
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by Silhouette on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @06:16AM
(#12795261)
So now what happens when a competing firm starts "offering" artificially high salaries just to force the current employer's costs up?