News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by microcolonel on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @09:22AM (#12796214)
>They are a tool of restrictive coercion to stifle an employees freedom of movement in the job market.

This is why they are a valuable part of an agreement. Including a non-compete means that your contract is lower risk for the employer, which can mean higher salary or better retention. Early termination terms exist for the same reason.

That said, a non-compete which prevents you entirely from practicing your craft would be a hard one to enforce, I've certainly never seen a contract like that.

If there are non-compete clauses in entry-level food service jobs, I hardly think they would bother to enforce them. The loss of a burger flipper from a McDonalds to a Burger King is less than the cost of lawyering them into a pit of despair.

Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by cableshaft on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @10:29AM (#12796676)
> If there are non-compete clauses in entry-level food service jobs, I hardly think they would bother to enforce them.

Well at least one fast food company forced employees to sign non-competes up until earlier this year: Jimmy John's sandwiches: http://fortune.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-non-compete-agreem...