Hacker News Reader

Comment by j-cheong | Hacker News Reader

I was under the impression that workers earning less than $151,164 annually usually don't have noncompetes anyway? Sounds like a lot of people will get bucketed into "senior executives" group. At least new noncompetes can't be created.

View on HN

Non competes are everywhere. Famous case with Prudential Security[0] where they had everyone sign non competes, that includes minimum wage workers, and they enforced them, which put an outsized strain on the minimum wage workers in particular.

Its a harmful practice across the board.

[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/noncompete-agreement-feds-sue-3...

That's the motivation behind this rule. About one in six food outlets were demanding non-compete terms in employment, to prevent their employees from quitting to work for higher-paying outlets.[1] (Not McD and Burger King; mostly the smaller ones.)

[1] https://thecounter.org/biden-targeting-non-compete-agreement...

I've know places that pay 1/3 of that and have noncompetes.

Although, someone in this type of a role can often get away with ignoring noncompetes as long as they're smart about how they exit.

>Although, someone in this type of a role can often get away with ignoring noncompetes as long as they're smart about how they exit.

Simply put though, they shouldn't have to.

I absolutely agree, but I make it a point to mention their limits of enforceability whenever I can because it is information worth spreading for those worried about one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com