comment: >
  
  Haha, the last place I worked gave us a packet of things to sign when hired. One of them was the anti-postit contract (if you are working here and invent something that makes you millions, that money is ours...like the guy that invented post-it notes did).
  I threw it away and signed the rest. Nothing ever came of it, but I spent a lot of time trying to invent things with company property.
context: In Denmark a non.compete clause require the employer to pay salary for as long as the clause runs. It tend to limit the use to those few key persons, where there are genuine concerns. >
  
  Exactly. If an employee is vital enough that the employer doesn't want them working for a competitor, they're vital enough to guarantee continued employment. Otherwise the employer is just abusing their imbalance of power to exert control over the employee. >
  
  I believe the free market guy was out buying turnips from that truck in the parking lot. >
  
  I wonder if he has a license to sell turnips >
  
  Of course Jan has a license, he just has to... Go grab it to prove it. >
  
  The only non-compete that should exist is a five year ban on allowing a politician to go work for a lobbying firm. >
  
  And lobbyists going to work as politicians >
  
  What’s a lobbyist then?  Would I be excluded for my work getting funding for pedestrian, bike, and bus routes in my area?
  Would my social worker friends who work for funding for their organizations be banned?
  This is like term limits discussions, it can sound good until you dive in to the details. >
  
  You mistake being a volunteer advocate for a paid lobbyist. Apples & oranges. >
  
  The commenter above never said that work was unpaid, that was an assumption you added. >
  
  I specified the kind of lobbyist in discussion was full time and generally working for corporate/private interests over societal. >
  
  What’s the difference between corporate interests and societal interests? What if a railroad company wants to build high speed rail between LA and SF in California? What if an auto workers union wants more electric car subsidies? What if a health insurance company wants shorter terms for pharmaceutical patents?
  You act like companies aren’t part of society, but they are. Society doesn’t exist without companies, and companies don’t exist without society. The people running companies are members of the society, and just like anyone else they can lobby for good or bad things. >
  
  We may have crossed wires somewhere because I don’t disagree with that.
  What I see a danger in is things like Dick Cheney serving in a political role straight from Halliburton, launching the war in Iraq against all US interests at a cost of $4 Trillion taxpayer dollars and many American lives where the main beneficiary was Halliburton (whose value jumped 800% from his efforts) and other private military contractors.
  Also look at how the the Sackler family got FDA perks for OxyContin and you’ll see the kind of stopgap people favoring this legislation mean.
  When private corporations fund politicians for sweetheart deals to the public’s detriment, America loses. I hope we can agree on that much. >
  
  We all agree with you that the examples you give are bad.  It’s that you can’t write a rule to prevent that which wouldn’t crippled good lobbying. >
  
  Employer sponsored health insurance is inherently also anti-freedom and fascist.  
  No one is really free to chose their line of work if their well being is physically tied to the will of a corporation 
  There can be no “pulling of the bootstraps” until we are truly free from employer contributions and deductibles thst reset when we change jobs. >
  
  I'm not defending our health insurance model necessarily, but it's not fascist. That's just not what the word fascist means. >
  
  I mean, that's not what libertarianism means either.
  I feel like this whole discussion is bizarrely misusing terms that have actual definitions.
  Our health insurance system very clearly has problems. It is also not fascist nor libertarian. >
  
  The system itself isn't the problem.  Its the Corporate NEED for endless growth and profits that is the problem.  Along with locking people to their job by tying it all to employer insurance.  
  This is the part that is Corporate Facism.  This is the part that is Libertarian Cancer.  That these big corps basically make us slaves with lock in. >
  
  I am just saying that fascism and libertarianism have specific definitions relating to forms of or philosophies about government.
  You are welcome to not agree with me, but it is bizarre to see words used so distantly from their actual definitions. >
  
  Doctors deal with it constantly now. If I take a job at the local hospital and they lied about the job or it’s just a bad job, I can’t leave and go to the next hospital over in town. You essentially have to uproot your family and move out of state. At times doctors have less bargaining power than nurses or any other employee. And the irony is that it applied to all doctors, including those who don’t even have patients to “steal”, like pathologists and radiologists >
  
  This should not apply to doctors. Honestly, it shouldn't apply to anyone. The idea was that it would prevent technology and trade secrets from going to a competitor but those things are protected by patents and trade secret/non disclosure agreements. There's no reason for them. >
  
  I'll point out one that isn't so much a recipe non-compete and more like what you're talking and use it as an example.
  Dog Grooming takes roughly 4 months of training. Maybe 6, plus equipment costs of around 600 bucks and that's for all of your basic level equipment. Because of that, it's actually hard to find a shop that will hire you as a paid groomer apprentice. The one I got hired to actually paid you while you apprenticed and paid for your equipement, but we had to sign a non-compete agreement that basically said "upon finishing my training, I will work here for at least 1 year before going to another dog grooming place."
  If you up and left grooming, that was fine. You just couldn't work for another dog groomer. And her reason? She had a couple people train under her and than within a couple months of finishing they went to another grooming shop. Turns out, the owners of those shops had sent them to her shop to get the training so that they didn't have to pay for it and the equipment. >
  
  I would take this story with a massive grain of salt, but if it’s 100% accurate, I wonder what the other shops are offering these employees that she was not?  
  Was the other shop paying these people the whole time so they would come back afterward?  Cuz that would defeat the purpose of skipping on training costs in the first place. >
  
  The sending an employee to another place sounds like horseshit to me. Not to mention dog groomers pay like shit or have really sketchy self employment models. >
  
  I would absolutely agree that it'd be weird if it just happened to her, but I can honestly say she wasn't the only one I've heard of that happening if you put any weight into stories on r/doggrooming
  I couldn't say why it'd happen or such, but just my experience on what my shop owner said. >
  
  i worked 15 yrs in feature film VFX and these were common at most studios. but i always laughed them off because i knew it was unenforceable, and i never heard of an employee getting in trouble over it.
  turns out i was only right about that while in CA, where i did most my work. it should be nationwode. >
  
  
  turns out i was only right about that while i CA, where i did most my work. it should be nationwode.
  
  CA, MA, WA, OR (for most). Non-competes are unenforceable in most of the non-shithole states >
  
  Yea colleague of mine in OR got burned on a noncompete from our WA based company. And several CA based one’s got out, but had to put up with a year long legal bs battle. It should just be banned across the board - folks in shithole states need protection too you know >
  
  Totally agree >
  
  Lina Khan is low key one of the best picks Biden has made to head a government agency or commission.  She’s incredibly smart and on the right side of most issues when it comes to monopolies and unfair business practices.  
  This is a great change.  However, we all know our corporately captured judiciary, especially SCOTUS, will be itching to earn their keep and invalidate this rule
  
  The FTC will likely face legal challenges, including on whether it even has the power to regulate noncompete agreements. The agency says the proposed rule is based on a preliminary finding that noncompetes constitute an unfair method of competition and therefore are a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. >
  
  She's got a lot going for her but has done very little in her two years in office so far. >
  
  I read the article.  Sounds like the drop in employee satisfaction a bit more complex than you’re making it out to be.  I got the sense that there was a lot of entrenched views and groupthink going on there, and there was widespread resistance to the new direction.
  It also seems like there were some obstacles to them completing some of their initiatives due to delays in the appointment of another commissioner 
  
  Khan’s critics say the decline in the rankings reflects staffers’ dissatisfaction with the antitrust reformers now at its helm, a group that had long criticized it before joining. Christine Wilson, a Republican commissioner who has condemned Khan’s leadership style, says the agency has “suffered greatly” under her leadership.
  Yet other employees within the agency were optimistic that morale was on the upswing, especially as the agency moves on more competition and consumer protection issues. Many of Khan’s plans have been stymied for months as the commission waited for the Senate to confirm Alvaro Bedoya, the agency’s tiebreaking Democrat. >
  
  The way it works in my country (Belgium) is:
  
  The non-compete agreement must be geographically limited
  The non-compete agreement must be limited in time to at most 12 months
  The non-compete agreement must be limited in scope to actually competitive activities. The burden of proof for this lies on the employer, and courts tend to side with the employee. For example: a salesman who is actively poaching customers from his previous employer would probably be covered, but a programmer who is going to do similar programmer type things at another company would not be.
  The employer also has to actively decide to enforce the non-compete at the end of the contract and inform the employee.
  If the employer decides to enforce the non-compete, he is obligated to pay the employee fair compensation for the duration of the non-compete (usually this is +- the employee's wages for that period), regardless of the employment status of the former employee.
  
  In practice, non-compete agreements are almost never enforced. >
  
  Your country actually sounds sane. Why don’t we follow your lead? >
  
  Cause big corporations control your policy? >
  
  That was a rhetorical question, but yes. >
  
  we should be able to compete wherever we want.  If a business can't compete, why do we need that business? >
  
  So. Arbys. There's  a franchise called DRM, which is whom I worked for, and than there's PANDA. I wanted to switch from DRM to PANDA due to overtime bullshit that was only an issue with DRM. 
  I got into so much bullshit when I tried transfering due to their non-compete agreements. The same resteraunts just different franchises. Was so fucking annoying. >
  
  hold on.  There's non compete agreements for fast food restaurants?   They sort of made sense with super specialized positions (not that I agree with them there either) but fast food? >
  
  
  They sort of made sense with super specialized positions
  
  They don't make sense for that. My dad is an engineer in a very niche field. He got let go from one company and they tried to enforce a noncompete. 
  By the first companies logic he should have just taken a massive pay cut and maybe found an entry level engineering position at 50 years old?
  It never went anywhere for them, but it's honestly just bullshit anywhere that they try to enforce them. >
  
  Oh I definitely don't agree with them and have previously turned down positions that wanted non competes simply because I was also in one of those niche fields.  I can however understand why the companies want them (to limit our options as they don't really want to have to compete to keep employees)    I can't however understand why a company would think a non compete for a fast food worker would be worth even trying to enforce. >
  
  Here's the best part.
  For Arby's, you didn't sign one a specific paper saying such. It was in the employee handbook. When I applied for PANDA, and my DM at DRM found out, she flipped and said I had to put my two weeks in for violating the employee handbook. I told her she could fire me, but that I wouldn't be putting my two weeks in.
  So instead, they went out of their way to make my work absolute hell, and than lied to the DM of PANDA about me to the point I could've made a defamation suit against the DRM DM if I could've afforded it.. >
  
  Here's my issue. All these companies want to pay starvation wages and then not allow overtime, but then also demand you not have a second job in the same field. If they don't allow overtime, my "specialty" is related specifically to that field, and I can't go work for a "competitor" on the side, how the hell am I supposed to make enough money? Noncompete needs to die. >
  
  I always hated that get a second job shit. When I worked on fast food the managers were beyond shitty to people with 2 jobs. Always wanted priority over the second job even if they put the schedule out on a Saturday night for the following Monday >
  
  I can maybe see the second job thing in certain fields or jobs, where you might thave legitimate concerns of conflicts of interest or concerns about accidentally crossing the streams. But like there's not much concern of accidentally flipping big macs while you're working extra hours at Wendy's. >
  
  
  I can maybe see the second job thing in certain fields or jobs, where you might thave legitimate concerns of conflicts of interest or concerns about accidentally crossing the streams. But like there's not much concern of accidentally flipping big macs while you're working extra hours at Wendy's.
  
  I had a friend who was a teacher at a really great rural school in Vermont who worked at the convenience store near my house to pay the bills. Imagine scheduling a second job like that as a teacher.
  Now imagine it for 3 different fast food managers who wont clock you more than 30 hours a week to avoid insurance and also want you to schedule for work the day the schedule is posted and be on call or get fired for a no-call no-show.
  No stability at all.
  The same mostly goes for "the gig economy" though some can hustle a skill set to make bank, mostly it's people who once got a car on credit living in it and driving strangers around for lunch money and car payments. >
  
  Or …  require non-competes to pay salary during term … that seems reasonable
  Company gets value of not losing critical - time value with information that ex employee has as a privilege of their previous employment
  Ex employee has income to rely on while building new non-competitive book of business or move rolls based on skill not on privileged info >
  
  This is a thing - it’s called “gardening leave”, where executives or people with corporate secrets are still employed, but all their access to the company is revoked. However, companies only use it when absolutely needed as it is expensive >
  
  So it would be a good way to insure non compete clauses are only used when really needed >
  
  Sounds like a good solution to me >
  
  I am an at Will employee, so why should my employer be able to restrict me after either of us has exercised “at will”.  Currently they can treat me like shit and underpay me, I can’t get another job in my chosen field for minimally one year.  Does this sound like indentured servitude?  If you quit, your family starves, so shut the fuck up!   I hope Biden and the Democrats are successful.  Now the rich control the House of Representatives, it might be difficult. >
  
  I've been asked to sign them, and I just said no. They agreed to edit out all the stuff I didn't like, which left them with just a piece of paper that basically said I won't solicit current customers. In fact, both employers I did this too told me they never had anyone not agree to sign something before.
  You can just say no. >
  
  I got asked to sign one as a freaking intern. 
  Straight up told them no unless they were going to offer me a full-time job. >
  
  You do realize, it has to be specific( what technology does it cover) for a certain time period (forever is not a time period) and a geographic location (planet Earth is not a location, must be something like North America) The most they can is 1year.  Most don’t know this, so, indentured servitude. >
  
  I didn't then. 
  I do now. >
  
  Two guesses as to what the Supreme Court will say when this is immediately challenged in court. >
  
  I'm actually not sure which way Gorsuch would go >
  
  Capitalists: COMPETITION MAKES US BETTER.
  Also Capitalists: We're going to make sure you cannot compete in a similar industry if you leave our company. >
  
  I've been hearing annually that they will be banned for 20 years. If I stated how much these have cost me in my life by locking me in I would be called a liar. You literally get locked into a company (and the companies aee very aware). I know many people who have had to choose between staying at a company, for in many cases decades at whatever comp you can scratch out, or choose to leave your industry and start over in another, which no one can do with a mortgage and family. They never should have been allowed in the first place. 99% of people under them hold zero trade secrets. >
  
  I'm in sales and my non-compete is specific to say if I go outside or on my own I'm not allowed to do business with any contacts I have in my current role.
  I doubt this change applies to me. >
  
  Non-compete clauses and non-solicitation clauses are different. 
  You'd be able to work for a competitor (or yourself), but could still be prohibited from bringing along clients from your previous position/employer. >
  
  That's it.  You're right. >
  
  I have violated every noncompete I've ever signed lol. 
  Ive even poached clients from a company that fired me. >
  
  Based giga chad, I salute you. 
  You’re literally the only person in this thread with IQ not in the single digits. There’s 100s of other idiots commenting “hurr I’ve lost millions of dollars cuz muh non compete” when 99.9% of them are bullshit. 
  Employers put them in there and require everyone to sign but the chances they get enforced are 1 in a million. Unless you’re selling the secret Coca Cola formula, you’ll be fine and can get any other job you want. 
  Just don’t be a dumbass blabber mouth. Even if you signed a non compete it’s very likely it’s not legally enforceable or the former employer takes action. Do you think your former employer is going spend thousands of dollars and hours of time on legal actions, to punish you from working at Burger King instead of McDonalds… 
  If you let your employer dictate your life, how you provide food for your family, even after they fire you and threaten you with lawsuits, then you’re a mentally handicapped mouth breather who’s no more autonomous than a slave. >
  
  Non-compete clause, because they don’t want to pay you well, treat you well, or offer good benefits. >
  
  I work in banking, and noncompete agreements are pretty standard in the industry, especially in sales related roles.  You can bet states with a heavy banking industry presence feel pressure not to outlaw these agreements, and that would obviously include even some more progressive states like NY, MA, and DE >
  
  MA bans all noncompete agreements that don't have a garden leave clause in effect for the entire noncompete period, equal to half your highest pay for the past three years. >
  
  Didn't work for me anyway. My employer sued me in a different state and then moved it to federal court.  I had no chance, even though I was working in MA. >
  
  I'm a veterinarian.. non-competes are standard. It sucks. If you're doing a residency, a 250 mile non-compete is common. It forces you to uproot your life over and over, especially if you're working somewhere that treats you like shit. But if you've bought a house and have a family, it's hard to pick up and leave. >
  
  250 mile definitely isn’t common in the United States. 25 - 30 miles is common. 
  250 miles wouldn’t be enforceable. 
  All of it is bullshit though. >
  
  The two times I was asked to sign a noncompete...
  
  
  Owners "stole" work to build / remodel a couple large freezer warehouses for a national grocer.
  
  
  Owners "stole" work to reface properties for a worldwide convenience store chain.
  
  
  Crooks get awful upset when ya crook em back. >
  
  Non compete clauses and health insurance are the two big hammers corporate America uses to keep their employees in line. >
  
  I had a non-compete at my previous job and it ended up benefiting me. One day my boss walked into my office and fired me without cause, perhaps forgetting we had a signed non-compete when I started almost 5 years earlier. So, they had to pay me my full salary for 6 months, plus gross-up’d Cobra. Ostensibly it was to prevent me from going to work for their competition, but the truth was I was tired of the industry and was already looking for a way out anyway. So, I went back to school and finished up my degree and enjoyed a few months of paid vacation before finding work I actually enjoyed. >
  
  You lucked into a sweet deal. Most noncompete agreements aren't like the one you got. >
  
  I had to sign a non-compete saying I wasn't allowed to do portrait photography in the the county I lived in, plus the three surrounding counties for two years after leaving the company. Photography is literally my trade. It was the stupidest non-compete ever. Honestly I broke it because I needed to make money and was ready to fight it court because it was too broad. I worked for a different studio previously that their non-compete was just "don't steal our clients" which is pretty easy to follow and fair. They don't want you to use their studio to gain your own client base. >
  
  I was subject to a non compete at my last job and got an offer from a direct competitor. It was a 30% pay raise and full time wfh for the exact same job. Once i found out I had a non compete and told new potential employer, they  had their lawyers review and told me they couldn’t proceed with me (keep in mind I was just a manager). I hated my company and needed to get out so I asked to be released from my non compete which they refused to do. I ended up completely leaving the industry for a new role because of this and am still incredibly salty about it. >
  
  In the year that I studied to become a translator, we learned about how the translation industry works. One of the things that got me angry, was the fact that your employer can bar you from working with "their" clients after you quit or get fired. So in practice: 
  
  Starting as a translator, you need experience before you can become independent. So you start off, working at a translation agency.
  There is a list of clients you help establish and maintain. Client retention is based on your performance. 
  You get fired or quit.
  You are not allowed to accept jobs from any of the clients the agency has done business with for at least 5 to 10 years. 
  Since this ruins your ability to become independent, you start working at a different translation agency. 
  
  The worst part is that the teachers and professors at the translation academy simply didn't get why this was bad...basically saying: "but what about the profits of the agency?" >
  
  Need to do this with arbitration agreements too. >
  
  And NDAs >
  
  Huge deal for pro wrestling. WWE loves enforcing noncompetes on wrestlers they fire. >
  
  Back in 2002 Jimmy John’s made me sign something saying I would never work for another place that made sandwiches ever again in my life. >
  
  I once had a former employer try to con me into signing a non-compete/NDA in my EXIT interview. 
  It was hilarious, watching them try to force me into signing it. I was even told that not signing it would impact my receiving my final paycheck. 
  I went to the WI DLR website, showed them where trying to skip my final check would cost them up to triple in court. 
  Whaddia know? I got my final check! They snail-mailed it in place of direct deposit but I received it. 
  Turns out, NDA's and NC's are not enforceable without money tied to them. Even if I had signed it, there was no power behind it. >
  
  Non Competes are designed to keep salaries low, with the secondary goal of stifling any competition.  I am fairly certain that they are not legally enforceable in most states, but that’s not the point.  Employers have the resources to actually go to court, even when they’re going to lose.  Most employees cannot afford the time off and legal fees required to fight it out.  So they’re intimidated into not seeking work elsewhere for better pay and benefits.  So while they aren’t legal, they absolutely need to be banned, with massive, massive fines for companies who try to force their workers to sign them. >
  
  I'm basically prevented from taking another job in my industry anywhere in the country for a year unless I want to roll the dice on a legal battle over my theoretically unenforceable non compete. The best part? They can fire me for any reason and still enforce it. >
  
  Imagine, companies actually rewarding employees so that they aren't tempted to work for the competitor, instead of threatening them
  nah let's just keep paying them less and less, then sue them when they look for another job >
  
  As someone who employs people, I agree.  
  Also, I've found that this is not really even a money issue. More often than not people just want to be treated like people. I let my people set their own schedules, and work from home as needed and that pretty much does the trick. 
  My rules are simple, if you work from home, it cannot create extra work for people who are at the office and your work needs to get done. Outside of that do whatever you want. Don't follow the rules and you will be returned back to the industry. That simple. >
  
  One of the reasons I didn't move to MA over CA. They're unenforceable in CA. In MA, every employee in my industry is asked to sign one. I was offered a job and they wanted me to sign what I would consider an executive level non-compete. For an entry level role. I told her I'm not signing that and they could go pound sand
  They only offered me $65,000 in Cambridge for that shit. Ridiculous >
  
  Ban arbitration agreements too! >
  
  Per my employment contract, I owe my employer a considerable amount if they fire me with or without cause in the first 18 months. That should be illegal. >
  
  I have made this comment before when this topic has came up. 
  This has prevented me more than once from getting a better paying job. I did great on the interview only to be told later we can't hire you because you work for X. I found out that the company I worked for was willing to let me go but wanted the new employer to pay them $25K to waive the noncompete.  
  It is even worse in a smaller market. It was basically a one-industry town and everyone provided support to that industry so once you started working for one company it was impossible to get a job with another in the area. >
  
  And most noncompete agreements are not enforceable and If they are enforceable, the judge will make it extremely narrow because they can’t prevent you from making a living. 
  The thing is , companies have deep pockets and they don’t care if it’s not enforceable, they will drag you through the court and bankrupt you.
  Source: headhunter for 25yrs and had to move 100 miles to start my own firm and have had colleagues nearly bankrupted for trying to leave >
  
  When I worked for McDonald’s years ago a new owner took over and they asked me to sign a noncompete agreement that I wouldn’t work for other fast food restaurants. I wasn’t even working for another company but I refused to sign it. 
  When they asked me why I said “why should I commit to a company that refuses to let people work full time to prevent paying them over time?” 
  They didn’t make me sign it. I quit 2 months after that when my hours were cut. >
  
  As a dentist this it is industry standard to not only have a noncompete that includes large portions of metropolitan areas or even counties. Not only that but we are often forbidden from hiring fellow employees for 2 years which means my contract forbids the employment freedom of many other people. It's the most un-American, anti-free market thing ever. >
  
  They mostly don't hold up in court anyway, it's just for intimidating employees into not leaving >
  
  I can finally quit my job at jimmy John’s and go work at the subway across the street >
  
  Good. Fuck these illegal, unenforceable contracts employees get forced into signing anyway. I had to sign one in an old job and I broke the terms when I moved on and worked for myself. If I'm thinking like an economist however, this will cause job turnovers to increase in the labor market, which should be bad for productivity, and good for wage growth. Both of these factors are inflationary. Just a thought. >
  
  Either that or employers will need to treat their employees well so they don't leave. That does not always mean pay. >
  
  I started a biotech company in Massachusetts and had to leave the industry entirely because of the noncompete I signed and I had to leave the PhD program I was in. I’m not some kind of genius who would have saved humanity but the fact that companies can use these as threats against a regular person without recourse has certainly cost us all something as a society. >
  
  I’m a doctor and once signed a contract with a 30 mile radius non compete. It was a good gig but holy shit if I wanted to move across town I couldn’t. As someone else said in another comment I’d have to move my whole family to another city or state. Currently I’m on a 10 mile non compete which is honestly not much better. So absurd. >
  
  In MA non competes for docs, nurses, social workers and lawyers are prohibited. Just makes sense. >
  
  99% of non-compete clauses aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, because the employer isn’t going to enforce it. 
  Worked at a franchise in six different locations, moved to a shop across from one of those locations, and the area manager tried to threaten me with legal action. I asked them to do what they need to do, and I didn’t hear back from them after that. >
  
  I dated a girl who is a mental health therapist. She had a non-compete that prevents her from working in anything therapy related in a 30 mile radius for 8 months. 
  She was offered a higher paying job that she couldn't take because of this. How is that capitalism? It literally stops companies from having to compete for workers because they're trapped once they get them. >
  
  They aren't enforceable in 99% of cases and she should have taken the new job. >
  
  Except the company did enforce the non-compete against another employee. Unfortunately, lawyers aren't free or cheap so the law means little to those without the resources to go to court. >
  
  So I live and work in a state that already outlawed non-competes in 2022. The reality is that once my company was forced to take out the non-compete clause, they decided to put in a buyout clause (which I did NOT have before). Now in order to quit before my 2 year term is up I have to cut them a check for 40% of my pre-tax annual salary which comes out to about $25,000. That’s an impossible sum of money to come up with. Even if I didnt have to pay rent or bills it would barely be possible. 
  So instead of being able to quit whenever I wanted to and just not work for the competition, I essentially am trapped in my job unless I can come up with a ludicrous amount of money. These buyouts are what really needs to be made illegal. They’re so much worse than NC’s. >
  
  My fiance had just earned her NMLS and was set to start making bank as a loan officer. The owners brother sexually harrassed her, she reported it, and he fired her a week later. We are suing and it is going to trial due to him refusing to settle or even get a lawyer... It happened last Feburary and we are about 2 years away from court according to her lawyer.
  She has a non compete from this job which she has to honor even though we are suing. This forced her to take a bullshit job that only pays half her portion of the bills, I'm stuck with the rest...
  The non compete ends in Feb thank God but it's been such a burden
  So when someone tells you to sue someone or contact an attorney as if you can fix all your problems understand it's going to add to your problems for awhile. Suing someone is literally like a part time job. >
  
  Non-compete agreements should be illegal >
  
  Bosses: People don’t want to work anymore.
  Also bosses: once you work for me you can’t leave or I’ll sue. 
  Seriously signing non-compete contracts is a way to curtail growth for the employee and the economy. 
  I absolutely hate them. >
  
  So many of the arguments against non compete agreements also apply to health care. People would be more able to switch jobs or take the risk of starting a new business if their healthcare wasn't tied to their employer. Everything about our current system is in favor of corporate profit and against the interests of the workers. >
  
  This would be great news. Non compete clauses are pretty common in the rehab/therapy in nursing homes. >
  
  When I worked in local TV news noncompetes were in every contract and everyone was under contract - including the anchors, reporters, producers and photogs. The local TV stations were acting like a cartel to suppress wages. You'd be shocked to see how little TV reporters are paid - which is why so many of them are lame. >
  
  I own a growing small business. We train our employees and give them the chance to train us in that hopefully they improve on the parameters of the job. So a non-compete ban would mean that after an employee is up to speed, I have to treat them right? Oh no!!!!! :-)
  Look, you have an 112 non-sleeping hours in a week. About 1/3 of those are spent at work. Pay folks enough, show them that if the company grows they grow as well, and give them joy during their time with you. If you do these challenging things, you're pitching in, they're pitching in, and they'll WANT to be with you. Non-competes for the working man (I'm not being sexist; I'm just very old school), are bullshit. They're like a lash across the back. You don't treat people like that. >
  
  What a shame… imagine banning millions of workers. So sad. >
  
  Most non-compete agreements are already banned in California and I believe it was recently banned in Washington State too. >
  
  I recently had an interview for a recruiter position because I hate the company im recruiting for now. Interview went great until the very end they asked if I would be comfortable signing a no compete clause that would keep me from recruiting for any other company within 50 miles of the location of this one for 2 years. I told them they were out of their fucking minds asking people to sign something like that. No wonder I’ve seen that position on indeed for months now >
  
  I had a conversation in an ethics class about these clauses. The amount of people defending them was crazy.