California’s Assembly Bill 5 came for me today
California does not recognize non-competes [1][2].  California is also a nebula of innovation and great companies because of it, with creator&#x2F;developer freedom.<p>California will do things for labor other states won&#x27;t, like not allowing non-competes and AB5. Will there be some situations that aren&#x27;t ideal? Sure. Will it ultimately help more people not get taken advantage of in the labor market who need it most? Yes indeed.<p>The &#x27;editor-in-chief&#x27; as a contractor seems like stretch reason to get offended by AB5. They could easily be a part-time employee, deny all benefits and nothing would change.  But AB5 helps the people that don&#x27;t have the flexibility of OP.<p>&gt; <i>California AB5 &#x27;came for me today&#x27;<p>&gt; </i><i>As with many of my colleagues today, because I live in California, I was just told that I can no longer hold a paid position with SB Nation. This means that I will be forced to step down as Editor-in-Chief of Mavs Moneyball as of March 31</i><p>&gt; <i>For those who don’t know, California’s legislature recently passed a law, Assembly Bill 5, codifying a California Supreme Court decision that classifies many independent contractors as full-time employees. While there is a small carve-out in the statute that allows for paid writers or editors to continue to produce a very limited amount of content per company, it’s not nearly enough, and it would be hard for me or most of my colleagues to fit in that small box.</i><p>The OP makes it sounds like California kicked in the door and ripped their keyboard from their hand and never allowing them to work for the publisher. She can easily be part-time, start a business for it and contract, as an &#x27;editor-in-chief&#x27; you&#x27;d think that is more involved. With the limit of 30 articles a month is about 3 per month and that is per company, other writers that write for many publishers will be fully fine with this. I doubt most writers that write more than 3 articles a month would mind if they got extra protections, the editor-in-chief is a different thing entirely.<p>I can understand why businesses are mad about this but not labor or contractors.  California makes it easier for contractors to work by not allowing non-competes [1][2].<p>Non-competes are the most anti-American, anti-business, anti-innovation, anti-labor things in America. Support California taking a stand against the powerful and authoritarians that want essential slaves in the worst form of this.<p>I have no doubt that SCOTUS will eventually have to deal with non-competes. With how a conservative leaning SCOTUS sided on the favor of business with arbitration, and denying access to the legal system for many, it doesn&#x27;t look good [3]. Having California as an example of a non-compete state is great to have in that it is innovative and contractors don&#x27;t have to deal with that in California. I have to fight non-competes in every project that isn&#x27;t based in California. Lots of these companies want developers to sign a 2-year non-compete for a 3-6 month project which is completely asinine.<p>California ultimately does more for workers and low&#x2F;middle class than any other state as well as business being a competitive and innovative magnet. With a market this large they are using their leverage for good.  But there will always be the haters and FUD from big business and occasionally some that disagree. Ultimately these policies are better for America and labor.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.upcounsel.com&#x2F;non-compete-california" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.upcounsel.com&#x2F;non-compete-california</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Non-compete_clause#California" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Non-compete_clause#California</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnbc.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;04&#x2F;24&#x2F;scotus-conservatives-limit-class-arbitration-in-divided-decision.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnbc.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;04&#x2F;24&#x2F;scotus-conservatives-limit-c...</a>