Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by brightball on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @09:43AM
(#12796357)
Interesting. I'd always heard it was due to right to work, but after researching it a little bit more it's just how non-competes are handled in my state (South Carolina).
http://www.scnoncompetelawyer.com/
"A covenant not to compete will be upheld only if it is:
(1) necessary for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer;
(2) reasonably limited in its operation with respect to time and place;
(3) not unduly harsh and oppressive in curtailing the legitimate efforts of the employee to earn a livelihood;
(4) reasonable from the standpoint of sound public policy; and
(5) supported by a valuable consideration.
* * * *
If a covenant not to compete is defective in one of the above referenced areas, it is totally defective and cannot be saved."
"Right to work" means you have the right to work without being required to join a union, i.e. it bans union shops where one must pay union dues or lose their job [2]. It is a response by 26 states to federal collective-bargaining laws.
[1] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/understanding-noncomp...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law