We really need general regulations on non-competes. Bare minimum, it should be required that a company pay you a full salary if they want to block you from seeking employment elsewhere with your skills. If a company really cares that much about stopping competitors from taking advantage of your skillset, they need to be willing to pay up.
Then how would a company protect it's trade secrets?
FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions
21–30 of 189 posts
Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions
#22We really need general regulations on non-competes. Bare minimum, it should be required that a company pay you a full salary if they want to block you from seeking employment elsewhere with your skills. If a company really cares that much about stopping competitors from taking advantage of your skillset, they need to be willing to pay up.
Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions
#23We really need general regulations on non-competes. Bare minimum, it should be required that a company pay you a full salary if they want to block you from seeking employment elsewhere with your skills. If a company really cares that much about stopping competitors from taking advantage of your skillset, they need to be willing to pay up.
That still is anticompetitive.
Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions
#24Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions
#25Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but than the person is liable and could be charged in that case
Example: Former Uber Executive Sentenced To 18 Months In Jail For Trade Secret Theft From Google https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-uber-executive-s... > Anthony Scott Levandowski pleaded guilty and was sentenced today to 18 months in prison for trade secret theft related to Google’s self-driving car program, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson and John F. Bennett, Special Agent in Charge of t…
Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but than the person is liable and could be charged in that case
Example: Former Uber Executive Sentenced To 18 Months In Jail For Trade Secret Theft From Google https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-uber-executive-s... > Anthony Scott Levandowski pleaded guilty and was sentenced today to 18 months in prison for trade secret theft related to Google’s self-driving car program, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson and John F. Bennett, Special Agent in Charge of t…
Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions
#28When I gave advanced notice to Tudor Investment that I would be quitting they threatened to fire me with cause so that they could still enforce the non-compete without paying me in accordance with NY state law.
And they followed through with their threat, sending me a letter telling me I was being terminated with cause the day I officially quit.
To make their shitty shenanigans worse, they made the unpaid non-compete just short enough so that it wouldn't be worth it to sue. The NY Department of Labor also doesn't handle complaints if you're salaried above a certain threshold.
Don't ever work for Tudor Investment, they're two-faced assholes, but I shouldn't be telling you that when the government should.
Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions
#29We really need general regulations on non-competes. Bare minimum, it should be required that a company pay you a full salary if they want to block you from seeking employment elsewhere with your skills. If a company really cares that much about stopping competitors from taking advantage of your skillset, they need to be willing to pay up.
Then how would a company protect it's trade secrets?
Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions
#30Another example could be tacitly encouraging holding multiple jobs.
When the interests of employers conflict with the interests of overall economic productivity, government should lean towards the latter, instead of always taking the side of the employer. Let capitalism do what it does best.