|
|
|
|
|
by starwind
1263 days ago
|
|
Upvoting cause I agree in principal with where you're coming from in the sense that employers and employees should be able to bargain in their contracts and include clauses like non-competes as long as they square with the public policy of the state. My issue (and probably yours) is the way non-competes get handled by employers
* Every non-compete I've signed has been sprung on me while filing out paperwork on my first day. What am I supposed to? Walk out and be unemployed while I look for a new job?
* What do I actually get for a non-compete clause? Judges routinely rule that continued employment is enough consideration for near-anything including non-competes. But if some companies don't have non-competes, to me that isn't true consideration. Me signing a non-compete that isn't worded in this-for-that like standard contract clauses should be should be treated as a gift on my part by the courts that can be revoked
* Many states have restrictions on non-competes but most non-competes for national companies are boilerplate and often too broad. Combine this with a mandatory arbitration agreement and employers are doing an end-run around state labor laws either through arbitration or just strong arming employees |
|