I'm in Ohio, a few years ago me and a coworker were asked to sign a non compete by a company that bought the insurance agency we were working for. They didn't count on me hiring an attorney to review it. Was able to get them to strike wording that would restrict us for life. Best money spent.
I'm in Washington, and I'm a licensed massage therapist. Massage clinics here -- and pretty much everywhere in the US -- almost *always* try to force us to sign non-compete agreements, and often they're ridiculously broad. But the AMTA has been really good at making sure we therapists know our rights, and understand what's an acceptable contract and what isn't. Sometimes we negotiate when there's an agreement in our sign-on paperwork which is too broad; other times we just ignore it and see if it even comes up. Nearly always, the companies don't try to enforce it unless you either get your next job within a few blocks of your last one -- there are so many massage clinics in Seattle that that's how close you have to be in order to be a direct competitor -- or if you actively begin attempting to take your clients with you from their company. Those of us who don't do either are left alone, because the companies know that the AMTA will back us up if we try to sue them after they make trouble. It's not as good as not having the overly broad contracts in the first place, but it gets the job done.
Many, many non competes that businesses force employees to sign are un enforceable. Which is to say, they're not legally binding. I've signed these things for every company I've worked at, I design software as an electrical engineer, and each time, they have turned out to be unenforceable. These things are kind of cute when you're working in a salaried white collar industry, but reading your story about working as a massage therapist in Seattle, it made my blood boil. These agreements are really, really harmful to workers. They tilt the balance of power in favor of employers. Even if the agreement is unenforceable, if the worker _believes_ it's legit, then it still has the effect of preventing the worker from finding gainful employment at a competitor. Which, IMO, is wrong. Employers _claim_ that non competes actually help workers (how magnanimous of them 🙄) because if they lock employees in, and prevent them from leaving, then the company can invest more in the work via training. If the worker can just get up and leave, the company's investment in the worker goes to waste. The only problem with this nice-sounding explanation is that it has no connection to reality, except very niche exceptions and ultra high skilled industries like emergency room medicine. Its just a made up excuse, to try and justify the practice, after-the-fact. What employers _actually_ like about non competes is obvious, which is that it depresses wages, and gives them greater power and control. If you can't go to a competitor, you cant get a better wage. Unlike other first world countries, where workers have protections to advocate for themselves, in the US, leaving for a better job is basically the only power you actually have, to improve your lot. And these non competes take even _that_ away. I personally agree with Lina Kahn at the FTC on this. These things just shouldn't exist at in the US workforce. I personally think these things violate the right to free association. If employers are concerned about competitors hiring staff to spy on them, that's already covered by trade secrets and patent law. If employers are worried they'll train staff, only for staff to immeaditaly leave, there are countless ways for companys to retain important staff without these agreements. Bunch of babies.
@@wolfumz I agree -- they're just one more of the many ways that employers try to get even more of an advantage over workers who are already at enough of a disadvantage in bargaining already, being individuals trying to argue with a big company. I'm deeply thankful to the AMTA for making sure that pretty much all the massage therapists out there knew that they didn't have to obey these except within a very, very limited range, and that nothing could be done to us if we ignored them. The AMTA isn't quite a union, but it serves some of the functions of one. I wish we had an actual union. They can help a lot.
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.922 | 10 พ.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zmV5HRIxIBI/mqdefault.jpg)
You always pick the most interesting topics. Love your channel.
I'm in Ohio, a few years ago me and a coworker were asked to sign a non compete by a company that bought the insurance agency we were working for. They didn't count on me hiring an attorney to review it. Was able to get them to strike wording that would restrict us for life. Best money spent.
@@Dora-s3f well said.
I'm in Washington, and I'm a licensed massage therapist. Massage clinics here -- and pretty much everywhere in the US -- almost *always* try to force us to sign non-compete agreements, and often they're ridiculously broad. But the AMTA has been really good at making sure we therapists know our rights, and understand what's an acceptable contract and what isn't. Sometimes we negotiate when there's an agreement in our sign-on paperwork which is too broad; other times we just ignore it and see if it even comes up. Nearly always, the companies don't try to enforce it unless you either get your next job within a few blocks of your last one -- there are so many massage clinics in Seattle that that's how close you have to be in order to be a direct competitor -- or if you actively begin attempting to take your clients with you from their company. Those of us who don't do either are left alone, because the companies know that the AMTA will back us up if we try to sue them after they make trouble.
It's not as good as not having the overly broad contracts in the first place, but it gets the job done.
Many, many non competes that businesses force employees to sign are un enforceable. Which is to say, they're not legally binding. I've signed these things for every company I've worked at, I design software as an electrical engineer, and each time, they have turned out to be unenforceable. These things are kind of cute when you're working in a salaried white collar industry, but reading your story about working as a massage therapist in Seattle, it made my blood boil.
These agreements are really, really harmful to workers. They tilt the balance of power in favor of employers. Even if the agreement is unenforceable, if the worker _believes_ it's legit, then it still has the effect of preventing the worker from finding gainful employment at a competitor. Which, IMO, is wrong.
Employers _claim_ that non competes actually help workers (how magnanimous of them 🙄) because if they lock employees in, and prevent them from leaving, then the company can invest more in the work via training. If the worker can just get up and leave, the company's investment in the worker goes to waste.
The only problem with this nice-sounding explanation is that it has no connection to reality, except very niche exceptions and ultra high skilled industries like emergency room medicine. Its just a made up excuse, to try and justify the practice, after-the-fact.
What employers _actually_ like about non competes is obvious, which is that it depresses wages, and gives them greater power and control. If you can't go to a competitor, you cant get a better wage. Unlike other first world countries, where workers have protections to advocate for themselves, in the US, leaving for a better job is basically the only power you actually have, to improve your lot. And these non competes take even _that_ away.
I personally agree with Lina Kahn at the FTC on this. These things just shouldn't exist at in the US workforce. I personally think these things violate the right to free association.
If employers are concerned about competitors hiring staff to spy on them, that's already covered by trade secrets and patent law. If employers are worried they'll train staff, only for staff to immeaditaly leave, there are countless ways for companys to retain important staff without these agreements. Bunch of babies.
@@wolfumz I agree -- they're just one more of the many ways that employers try to get even more of an advantage over workers who are already at enough of a disadvantage in bargaining already, being individuals trying to argue with a big company. I'm deeply thankful to the AMTA for making sure that pretty much all the massage therapists out there knew that they didn't have to obey these except within a very, very limited range, and that nothing could be done to us if we ignored them.
The AMTA isn't quite a union, but it serves some of the functions of one. I wish we had an actual union. They can help a lot.
@wolfumz I agree 100%. Also a EE btw.
"our Lady of Perpetual Billing" priceless!