|
|
|
|
|
by mcbrown
3766 days ago
|
|
One simple solution would be to require employers to pay at least the workers' prior base salary for the duration they wish to enforce the non-compete. I've held senior positions where non-competes are to be expected, and that is always a standard term. Of course, the only reason it became a standard term is because people like me are represented by expensive lawyers who consistently demand it, and an Amazon warehouse worker isn't in the position to follow our lead. So the warehouse worker should be given the same protection by statute: if the employer wants to enforce a non-compete, they must do so affirmatively by paying the worker's salary (i.e. if they elect not to pay then the non-compete is automatically null and void). Of course the odds of something like that making its way through the dysfunctional legislatures of 48 states is vanishingly low. But we can hope. |
|
This is pretty much the standard in New Zealand employment law, and it seems crazy to me that people can (effectively) be denied a livelihood because they once worked one job.