[unshift]

it's very common for people to be as compliant as possible during the hiring process so as not to jeopardize the job, especially their first job out of school.

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.

[WingForward]

No, she's on the dole by choice. She was 25 years old, making $60K a year and quit for another job. Then she chose to quit that job too.

[vermontdevil]

She signed the non-compete agreement in 2007 when she was 22 or so. Life is not exactly black and white as you try to portray these things to be.

[fr0sty]

> Just before July 4th, Angela, a 26 year-old Boston University alumna, was laid off from her job as a software trainer.

She was fired after her previous employer threatened legal action. You can't say she "chose to quit" that job.

[WingForward]

"Angela worked at Bullhorn for about three years. She left the company on her own terms in October 2010 to work as a software trainer at a Boston-area hospital, but after seven months decided "it wasn't what I wanted to do." So she took a job as a business analyst with another company that sells software to recruiters."

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.

[fr0sty]

Whether she had zero, one or several jobs in between is immaterial. Bringing it up borders on ad hominem

Also, Fixed the tense on the previous comment, sorry.

[WingForward]

If it was immaterial, why quibble with me on the facts?

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.

[danssig]

But she did lose a valid employment opportunity because of it. That needs to stop.