A non-compete is professional suicide, in my opinion. There is no upside to the employee at all.
Point being, I did not sign their boilerplate non-compete. They were actually fine with that as long I signed a confidentiality agreement... and that's only fair.
Was she under duress when signing? Nothing in the article suggests she was. She signed the contract voluntarily and should stand by her decision. If she was too lazy to do her due diligance before signing, that's her fault too.
that tends to be the result of years of people saying "you're lucky to get a job at all" combined with a long search and endless interviews.
and while yes, she did sign the non compete, it doesn't mean it's not bullshit, which is the entire point of the article. of course you can be a hardass and say "she signed it", "should have read it more carefully", "her fault", etc, but now she's on the dole until the clause expires because someone had a hissy fit and threatened to sue her employer. it's a crappy, stifling situation all around which is what the article aimed to point out.
She was fired after her previous employer threatened legal action. You can't say she "chose to quit" that job.
She chose to quit two jobs before running into trouble at her third.
And "sic" is used to imply that the original quote was grammatically incorrect. Your usage implies I misused the word "chose" when you should have rephrased your sentence to make the tense correct.
Also, Fixed the tense on the previous comment, sorry.
It's not though. The whole article presents her as unemployed because of the NCA. That's inaccurate. She can and did work in her field.
Instead of that, what do we see? Employers that grudgingly give tiny pay rises to loyal employees that are essential cogs to their operations. I can't feel terribly sorry for the company when the employee decides that their career would be better served working for the competitor.