Massachusetts could be even more innovative if they banned noncompetes. EMC is the biggest employer lobbying to keep noncompetes in the state. Dell, based in Texas will probably want to keep noncompetes in place as well.
In Minnesota, I've had companies twice drag me into court trying to enforce a non-compete and the judge laughed at both companies and I was sent on my way.
The key in both cases was the company I had left was trying to keep me from working in the same field for a competitor. My attorney argued that if I'm "gainfully employable" you can't restrict me from earning a living in my chosen field - to do so would invite economic hardship.
The judge asked if they would rather compensate me for two years at my current salary (which was a six figure salary), or let me go work for their competitor. The company quickly chose the latter.
Don't know, as I am in CA. Someone from MA would have to answer this. The reason I won't consider jobs in states where noncompetes are legal is because employers will force them on employees during the hiring process (usually by surprise after the employee has given notice at there previous employer).
Noncompetes would be almost fair if it was required to compensate the employee for the duration of the time it is enforced. In the US, that's rare, but in the EU it not uncommon (gardening leave). In other words, the real underlying reason that noncompetes are used is to limit job-hopping by employees looking for better working conditions or a higher salary, but under the guise of prevent company secrets from being disclosed to a competitor is what is sold to the legislature.
I've worked for 5 companies since I've lived in MA, I've only ever had to sign a single non-compete, over 10 years ago. None of the places I've worked since have had them. I've never met anyone in MA that had one enforced.
Even if you beat the cases easily, I don't want to face the potential stress and lawyer overhead to adjudicate one. It probably takes a long time to come to a judge. It just sounds bad. So I imagine companies think this will discourage people from moving jobs, even if its not enforceable.
Seems a little weird to avoid 90% of the country for this reason. Why not just ask at the beginning of the interview process? Do you know of cases where a company has lied about their policy until after the candidate has quit their old job?
They may not lie, but they will attempt to dodge the question. You may also be deemed a troublemaker if you probe too much. (Which is probably OK, as you don't want to work in such an environment)
They want the docile job candidate who will sign anything with no questions asked.
I totally understand avoiding companies like that, I just think discounting almost every state because of the possibility of a non-compete is way too extreme. I'm early in my career, but I've never had to deal with a non-compete even though they're legal, and I don't think the behavior you're describing is very common, especially for non-entry-level positions.
In Washington state, all the big companies,medium companies, and startups I have applied to use noncompetes. Amazon, Facebook (I'm pretty sure), google, microsoft, all use noncompetes.
The success record at enforcing them is pretty good, actually. There was a court case some years back enforcing a non-compete and now companies have gotten bolder at going after people. I speak from a little experience, having hired a MA employment lawyer on one of these issues and the non-compete prevented my accepting of either of two job offers.
Good point, in wa state there were non-competes for sandwich shop makers. This is just to keep poor people from having economic opportunity. This is different than keep my recipes secret. This is you can't do minimally trained labor for someone else.
Personally think you dodged a bullet there... Not sure you would be employable after a 2 year hiatus from your industry. I would worry about how the next job interview goes due to the gap and the can of worms opened when explaining matters (if you are dealing with traditional HR).
Would it have been possible to leave the state(MN) and continue to work in your field?
>> Would it have been possible to leave the state(MN) and continue to work in your field?
I was already planning on it and one of the companies I was in talks with at the time had an out state office I could work at until "the heat" died down so to speak.
You probably need to talk to a lawyer to confirm what I say here, but if you move to CA, the only way you could be sued is if the employer files suit in a non-CA courthouse first,
You may be able to file a lawsuit in the CA court system first to invalidate the noncompete. Again, check with a lawyer on this.
Also, read up on Section 16600 in in the California Business and Professions code.
Emergency Motion, Restraining order, Injunction - these are all very exciting for the lawyers involved and gut wrenching for the employees. Usually you have to be a CxO level or salesperson - or do something that makes someone with money really mad.
We're getting there slowly. Keep in mind our big high-tech industry isn't electronics or software but rather bio-med which is big money and far more business and culturally conservative.
As someone who works for a start-up and tries to hire in MA, our biggest issue for innovation is a lack of people. Hiring is extremely hard here due to lack of applicants. The cost of living in the area is relatively high (only about 20% less than SF) and the winter weather is too cold for most people. Thankfully, Boston isn't as opposed to building as SF, so lots of new apartments are coming on the market every year. Hopefully that will drive down rents, or at least justify the high rents with nicer apartments. I'm not sure what to tell people about the weather, though.
All those issues sound just like the scenario in Washington State, which mostly means the greater Seattle area.
Our blocking issues for growing are enough devs, infrastructure costs (roads are crowded, buildings are in shorter supply, hard to find a place to build a new building in Kirkland, say). Also high cost of living. I personally think non-competes must hurt freedom to move around companies here a little bit too. I have only heard of it being an issue a few times. Still, more worker freedom is better; it must be that some people are disincentivized from switching. Worker "job switching lubrication" is an important economic boost that California has and we don't.
As someone that lives in Cambridge and going by your linkedin profile and glassdoor salaries, you might want to try bumping your salaries up by 15+%...
Really? Have you or someone you know had their noncompetes held against them? I've never actually seen it done here (MA), which is a good reason alone to abolish them but doesn't equate to them holding back innovation.
It's a bullying tactic that makes it difficult for employees to either go out on their own or go to other companies.
Would you be willing to go to court to find out?
I used to work with a guy who came up with a fairly good product idea (in his own time and at his own cost). He brought it to mgmt and they were not interested (wasn't in our space). So he tried to go out on his own with it and immediately received a Cease & Desist order. His lawyer said if he went to court could easily cost him up to $50K to defend successfully. So he gave up & complied.
Can you imagine the outrage if a plumbing business tried to enforce a non-compete (e.g. "you can't work as a plumber for 2 years"). Well ... unions.
Mass. would do well to outlaw them, but sadly the state legislature is easily bought so I don't expect it to happen anytime soon.
The worst I've had to endure myself is "friendly warnings" in exit interviews, but I know others who have been sued or overtly threatened with a suit. It doesn't take many actual cases for the chilling effect to be felt all around.
In Minnesota, I've had companies twice drag me into court trying to enforce a non-compete and the judge laughed at both companies and I was sent on my way.
The key in both cases was the company I had left was trying to keep me from working in the same field for a competitor. My attorney argued that if I'm "gainfully employable" you can't restrict me from earning a living in my chosen field - to do so would invite economic hardship.
The judge asked if they would rather compensate me for two years at my current salary (which was a six figure salary), or let me go work for their competitor. The company quickly chose the latter.