News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers. Parent comment

Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by brightball on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @09:17AM (#12796180)
That's definitely where the disconnect is then. The non-compete you are describing would be totally illegal in a right to work state.

I'm 36 years old, have run a business and dealt with a lot of contracts like this for clients in the area and this is the first time I've ever heard of a specific "non-solicitation" agreement. My guess is that's because around this area it's what we understand a "non-compete" to be.

I can't imagine anyone would ever sign a document that said they couldn't work in their field at all because they worked for this company.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by tristor on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @09:35AM (#12796299)
> I can't imagine anyone would ever sign a document that said they couldn't work in their field at all because they worked for this company.

Yep, but they do. Even Jimmy John's was making employees sign a non-compete saying they wouldn't work for any competing fast food delivery chains if they quit. E.g. if you drove for Jimmy John's you can't quit to drive for Domino's. http://fortune.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-non-compete-agreem...

They got sued and lost, but thousands of employees signed them because their only alternative was to not have the job or possibly any job.

[ Parent | on HN ]