[nl]

The obvious answer is that "obvious lines" aren't at all obvious at the scale of Google.

Googlers are well paid, and that pay reflects this.

[DANmode]

People said the same thing about non-compete agreements.

Sorry, not buying that’s for anyone’s good.

[nl]

I don't understand your point.

What I'm saying is that it might be "obvious" that it's ok to volunteer for a dog rescue group.

Is it equally as ok to volunteer to raise money for a dog rescue group operating in Gaza?

What about other charities operating in Gaza? What about in Israeli occupied territories?

[OkayPhysicist]

That's political speech, and specifically protected in California outside of work. If you fire your employee for political activities outside of work, you still have to pay them, because they're going to sue you for lost wages, and win.

[DANmode]

> I don't understand your point.

Then you don’t know the history of the non-compete agreement in the tech industry.

For decades, people were wringing their hands and holding themselves back from living well because they couldn’t possibly work for another software company after Google, Microsoft, whomever - because the contract stated they couldn’t work for competitors.

Well, then States showed up and said “that’s not even legal”, and people stopped handwringing.

But before, it looked very much like this thread.

If I was working for a dentist, none of your questions would be viable (let alone reasonable) for the employer to be asking.

[OkayPhysicist]

California has had a ban on noncompetes since the gold rush.

[DANmode]

and yet this is all very recent:

1.) https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30843644

2.) https://eppscoulson.com/google-got-slapped/

3.) https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/ab-1076-and-sb-699-codify-cali...