And a damn shame, too. One of the major enabling factors for Silicon Valley's success has been the unenforcability of non-compete clauses in CA.

MA has a lot going for it (e.g.: MIT, relative proximity with Europe, ...), but seems hell-bent on being the place where only large government contractors can emerge.

Meh, you reap what you sow and MA has spend decades cultivating incompetent government that's incapable of addressing the needs of the population but perfectly capable of spending our money. I'm sure we look like we have out shit together from far away in SillyValley but I assure you we don't.

>MA has a lot going for it but seems hell-bent on being the place where only large government contractors can emerge.

Large government contractors naturally find it easier to exist under a government that likes to stick its nose in all sorts of things (god forbid it actually stick its nose in things in a way that makes life better for people) than companies that are not specifically optimized to work with government.

The first (what you were discussing) prohibits non-competes completely for certain classes of employees (non-exempt, interns in school, employees terminated without cause or laid off).

The second applies to everyone else and has 8 requirements for a non-compete to be enforceable, including "the agreement includes a garden leave clause or other mutually-agreed upon consideration between the employer and the employee", where the garden clause includes at least 50% of the employee's wage! Of course, "other mutually-agreed upon consideration" could be something much less...

Also interesting: the law looks like it applies to any non-competes signed after October 1 - it starts in 10 days!

EDIT: IANAL

0: https://www.faircompetitionlaw.com/2018/08/06/massachusetts-...

Of course, that's also 50% of base. For the type of well-performing employee against whom non-competes are typically enforced, that means you have to settle for 25% or less of your total comp.

I am not a lawyer either, but from what I've seen in states where compensation is required, non-compete comp is typically 100% of base.

Of course, bonus is still a huge factor.

From a lawmaking perspective, it can be construed as "we looked at the issue, and found low-level employees to be worthy of protection, but nobody else."

> The article also specifies that laid-off workers are exempt.

Even in states where non-competes are generally enforceable, courts are often reluctant to enforce them against laid-off employees.

But guess what? Big corporations have little interest in enforcing non-competes against poorly performing employees.

Take a look at the article I linked elsewhere, to see what type of employees Amazon chooses to selectively target for non-compete violations. They are the well-performing employees who jumped ship for a better opportunity elsewhere. Their goal is to discourage this behavior, so they don't risk losing their best employees or (heavens forbid!) paying them their market value.

I don't know of a single case where they sued a poorly-performing, fired, or laid off employee.

I think a political perspective is probably more relevant/accurate which would likely be along the lines of "we looked at the issue, and protecting low-level employees is the most we could do and still get the bill passed"

Obviously large employers have vested interests in protecting non-competes and also have the lobbying budgets to successfully oppose the passage of stronger individual protection from non-competes

> Daniel McKinnon, who had been a hairstylist in Norwell, Mass., lost a court battle with his former employer who claimed that Mr. McKinnon had violated the terms of his agreement when he went to work at a nearby salon. Mr. McKinnon said that he did not think the original restriction — to wait at least 12 months before working at any salon in nearby towns — still applied because he had been fired after years of friction with the manager there. Shortly after being fired, he went to work at a nearby salon.

> But a judge issued an injunction ordering him to stop working at his new employer.

> “It was pretty lousy that you would take away someone’s livelihood like that,” said Mr. McKinnon, who for the following year lived off jobless benefits of $300 a week. “I almost lost my truck. I almost lost my apartment. Almost everything came sweeping out from under me.”