White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by otoburb on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @10:10AM (#12796551)

Perhaps to help establish a lack of negotiating leverage, one should always ask for the non-compete clause to be removed in writing and then save the (highly likely) employer pushback for future use.

In general, it's a good rule of thumb to archive written communications (paper or electronic) for any deal, but it's easier said than done when part of the negotiation takes place over the phone.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by cmdrfred on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @10:39AM (#12796775)

That might work. If I wanted to put an employee under a non-compete the easiest way seems to offer something in return. Something along the lines of: "...Employee shall not work for any competitor during his employment and 6 months thereafter, as such he will receive a one time payment of 10,000 dollars...". I think the main issue here is employers want this service for free.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by GeneralMayhem on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @11:46AM (#12797429)

I'd consider even $10,000 insulting in the Bay Area - that's 1 month salary in return for having control over them for 6 months.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by cmdrfred on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @01:19PM (#12798412)

The key is that number is negotiable. If it was low and static that agreement won't be enforceable.

[ Parent | on HN ]