News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Connecticut moves to help low-paid workers hurt by noncom... by jakelazaroff on Friday April 12, 2019 @10:19PM (#19650678)
How is coming up with regulation around non-compete clauses (and then further regulation attempting to close loopholes such as the ones mentioned by sibling comments) simpler than just outlawing them?
Re:Connecticut moves to help low-paid workers hurt by noncom... by fiblye on Friday April 12, 2019 @10:25PM (#19650712)
Most people don’t know whether they’re enforceable. Businesses will do anything they can to intimidate people and simple unenforcement doesn’t really do much.
Re:Connecticut moves to help low-paid workers hurt by noncom... by Broken_Hippo on Saturday April 13, 2019 @05:05AM (#19651893)
There are a few positions where non-competes are understandable. It is easier to carve out strict guidelines for having a none-compete than it is to exempt low-wage workers or have a comprehensive list of things that qualify for a non-compete.

So instead, make non-compete clauses really unattractive for your average employee. This would include things like paying the average wage over the last year, including any bonuses (or paying the average bonuses or prorating them another way), continuing to pay benefits such as health insurance contributions so the employee doesn't pay more, and things like that. I'd even be willing to put a penalty so the company would have to pay a bit more if their pay rate doesn't meet the industry standard in the area.

Re:Connecticut moves to help low-paid workers hurt by noncom... by olliej on Friday April 12, 2019 @10:32PM (#19650742)
How many low wage workers are aware that a non-compete clause is not enforceable in CA? Many contracts have it present, and businesses like to call attention to them, making it perhaps non-obvious that they are meaningless?
Re:Connecticut moves to help low-paid workers hurt by noncom... by jakelazaroff on Friday April 12, 2019 @11:44PM (#19650988)
Sure. But how do your regulations solve that? Presumably businesses would still be free to not mention the pay requirement in the contract. And even though they'd be obligated to actually pay if it came down to it, many people wouldn't be aware of that — bringing us back to square one.

You could require them to mention it, but that's just a more complicated version of banning it outright.

Re:Connecticut moves to help low-paid workers hurt by noncom... by chongli on Saturday April 13, 2019 @12:17AM (#19651099)
But how do your regulations solve that?

The difference is the matter of liability. In the regulation case, a business found to be in arrears could be hit with a very large judgement. On the other hand, if non-competes were simply banned and employees were unaware of the law, they could still suffer under the chilling effect of an unenforceable clause in their contract. To then discover the problem later and show damages in court would be much more difficult.

Re:Connecticut moves to help low-paid workers hurt by noncom... by olliej on Saturday April 13, 2019 @11:49PM (#19657503)
Until you get a class action law suit on the grounds, also (in light of your comment - companies that are intentionally screwing people are going to continue to screw them hoping to be ahead on balance) I'd add significant penalties for delayed payments.