I'm in Massachusetts and when I got a grunt job at an Amazon FC a few years ago I had to sign a noncompete. I don't know if it's enforceable and doubt it'd be enforced, but technically I think I'm not supposed to take a comparable job elsewhere for a year after I quit, or something like that.
the law bans this kind of thing now (as of October 2018): you simply can't have a noncompete unless the employee is exempt from overtime.
even for an exempt employee, the MA law now requires 50% salary to be paid for the period the employee can't work.
i don't know if existing agreements are enforceable or not though.
Re:Peak California
by andygreenwell on Sunday March 10, 2019 @06:55PM
(#19355263)
In my time in MA, I worked for three separate MIT startups, one top software company and one IP law firm. The law firm was the only one that didn’t require a noncompete. One of those companies was backed by one of the loudest voices in the Boston/Cambridge VC community campaigning against such agreements. The company had me sign an updated non-compete upon closing a funding round at the same time their VC was giving public speeches denouncing noncompete agreements in MA. Until the garden leave requirement covers 100% salary, the updated provisions to MA noncompete law are toothless.
Probably due to the culture of those in HR and Legal they have gown up for generations with these one-sided agreements and just implement them with out thinking.
A few high profile sackings of HR directors or General Counsels might help.
50% garden leave isn’t ideal. A lot of people aren’t in a position to take that pay cut (along with bonuses and RSUs) to hang out for a year. OTOH it makes companies put a fair bit of skin in the game which has considerable value.
Generally the 'exempt' thing needs to be pushed up to CEOs and such only as well.
Someone without the latitude to hire, fire and delegate as necessary should NOT be exempt.
There’s already a very limited set of exemptions, although most startups definitely pay zero attention to these laws. We’re very careful about them, but most aren’t; frankly, it’s very annoying to our non-exempt employees because tracking is a pain in the ass, but them’s the laws :/
1.) Massachusetts recently passed a law significantly limiting non-competes
2.) I've never been able to find specific numbers, but my experience in Massachusetts is that they're far from universal. I've only had one in my career and that one was quite narrow. (That was EMC which was one of the local employers who fought hardest against the weakening of non-competes.)
I don't like non-competes and personally think the new law should have been stronger than it was. But, historically people jumped around employers like the Route 128 computer companies all the time.