21–30 of 218 posts
Banning noncompete agreements is something California has been doing right since 1872 when they were first banned. Another thing California does right is refusing to honor noncompete agreements from other states.
> since 1872 I knew California had banned them but I though it had happened a few decades ago at most.
I’ve found these non-competes often have no teeth. Unless you possess exceptional knowledge or secrets, companies will not waste the resources going after you. And often when they do, they lose. But it’s a judgement call. I’d say the fear of non-competes has more power than the non-competes themselves.
The problem is the average person doesn't have the money to pay a lawyer to fight off a company - especially the ones with teams of lawyers who need something to do.
Non-competes really only matter for people with exceptional knowledge of something.
From a business standpoint, the legal resources to build a case against a single “average person” who signs a generic non-compete are not a good investment.
But like I said, it’s a judgement call. Anyone in the possession of that exceptional knowledge should be able to determine the risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the average person doesn't have the money to pay a lawyer to fight off a company - especially the ones with teams of lawyers who need something to do.
If you’re the “average person”, you have nothing to worry about. Trust me. Non-competes really only matter for people with exceptional knowledge of something. From a business standpoint, the legal resources to build a case against a single “average person” who signs a generic non-compete are not a good investment. But like I said, it’s a judgement call. Anyone in the possession of that exceptional knowledge should be…
Banning noncompete agreements is something California has been doing right since 1872 when they were first banned. Another thing California does right is refusing to honor noncompete agreements from other states.
You can still enter into a legally binding non-compete in California resulting from the acquisition of a company or IP.
Seems more reasonable than locking employees up as part of hiring
Banning noncompete agreements is something California has been doing right since 1872 when they were first banned. Another thing California does right is refusing to honor noncompete agreements from other states.
You can still enter into a legally binding non-compete in California resulting from the acquisition of a company or IP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't follow, which part did you fail to understand?
The part where trying to enforce a non-compete in California will get you laughed (literally!) out of a lawyers office. Unless the employee in question is unable to use Google and search for "non compete california", which, I'd hope every tech worker is able to use Google, the zeroth (meaning, it's right on the search results page, and not a link away, it states "In the state of California, non-compete agreements tha…
noncompetes work even when illegal and unenforceable. Why, because you or many of your potential employers don't want the massive cost and emotional toll of being sued - even if you win you lose. That's all google, facebook, microsoft, etc. you know the companies that we KNOW are guilty of operating a cartel to drive down wages. That's all they need. This baseless illegal, legally unenforcable contract provision mean…
> Cue the apologists working for the big silicon valley players... Why? Silicon Valley is in California where noncompetes are illegal. Silicon Valley companies don't use them. I've been in Silicon Valley my entire career and I have never seen one or heard of anyone who has.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> since 1872 I knew California had banned them but I though it had happened a few decades ago at most.
I can't find any historical reason noncompetes were banned. I assume it happened because California was a new state and people coming there to work did not want to get stuck with the first employer they happened to end up with. There also would not have been a heavily established business lobby with enough power to prevent a ban, as there was on the east coast. California was writing a new legal code, so there was no…
Interestingly, this also happened in North Dakota.
https://www.noncompetereport.com/2013/01/north-dakota-non-co...
I’ve found these non-competes often have no teeth. Unless you possess exceptional knowledge or secrets, companies will not waste the resources going after you. And often when they do, they lose. But it’s a judgement call. I’d say the fear of non-competes has more power than the non-competes themselves.
You're right that the fear has more power than the non-compete itself, but the reality then is that companies en masse employ a politics of fear in their contract language.