https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/561954-biden-to-issue-executive-order-to-curtail-non-compete-clauses



The purpose of non-compete clauses in employing is to protect a company that donates time and effort into training. To prevent workers from moving to a competitor for more pay.

However monopolistic activities by these big corporations to drive down wages have rendered these protections obsolete. Biden really will help the working class with this.

Maybe employers will have to start treating employees better. Power to the people?

good. non competes are anachronistic, especially now in a quasi remote-based work-world. ndas are becoming more useless too tbh, hardly worth the cost to enforce

you dont want your top talent becoming the competition well incentivize them to hang around on your team

I thought non competes never held up in court anyway

This post was edited by duffman316 on Jul 8 2021 08:50am

true, many corporations are hard to sue for a single employee tho.

They will hold up if they are specific and time-limited.

So if you are a programmer and the non-compete says "You will not program for any other organization", then that's not specific enough.

I had to sign a non-compete that said "You will not work for another manufacturer in a role dedicated to chemical analysis or creation of edible enzyme supplements for two years". That would have almost definitely held up in court.

This made me cry a tear.

It is interesting to note that non-compete agreements are COMPLETELY ILLEGAL in California, which explains why big tech operates out of there.



The law becomes fluid when you can hire a billion dollars worth of lawyers to hunt down your corporation's enemies.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Jul 8 2021 09:12am

I consulted a fairly reputable employment lawyer here in Canada before I left public practice, and they determined mine would hold up in court. It was a two year non-compete in all of Wester Canada that stated 50% of revenues earned within those two years from providing assurance or taxation services would be paid back to them. Now it was far more wordy and full of legal jargon, but that is the essentials.

Because it had a timeline, because it was contained to a geographic area, because it did not technically make it impossible for me to generate a living since only 50% would be garnished it was determined that those factors would make it a far more viable non-complete clause.

She did say that if I could prove that the 50% garnishing was in excess, it could be possibly reduced in court.

This post was edited by SBD on Jul 8 2021 09:21am

Much like big tech the automation industry runs on stealing other's best employees. we have designers here that make 2x what a new designer makes, or more, and we sniped them off other companies. 8 times out of 10 we interview someone we give them an offer and they get a raise at their company. most companies contract people by grabbing tech degree kids, finding the wheat in the chaff, and then paying for bachelors and getting them on 10 year contracts or so.