Connecticut moves to help low-paid workers hurt by noncompete rules

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]