Awh come on folks.. This is how this game is played, or didn't you understand?
Anybody in Congress, in either house, can submit bills that say ANYTHING they wish. So you get elected and to "keep" your campaign promises you show up the first week, toss you bill into the growing pile of bills errr Campaign promises that everybody knows will never make it out of committee. They hit the floor, get referred to the appropriate committee and get sent into the committee's inbox to die.
The only way you get a bill out of committee is to have enough pull by getting enough of your cohorts to agree to pull it up. If leadership doesn't want it, it isn't going anywhere but the circular file next to the desk in about 2 years. Everybody in Congress knows how this works.
In this case, Rubio is doing this, hoping to get PR support to make something happen, but chances are it's going to die when the next congress is seated in 2021. It's next to meaningless, except for election ad material in about 2 years when he has to start his next campaign.
They can publish all the "feel good" guidelines they want. Until they can effectively and promptly enforce consistent guidelines, it's all marketing drivel aimed at keeping the lawyers and regulators at bay.
Exactly this. They have all sorts of rules and guidelines but we all know that unless the PR $#!+ hits the fan they don't enforce them regularly. They are in the business of selling ads and as long as they are not getting raked over the coals for something, they don't have the resources to police everybody. Just keeping porn at bay is a full time job, even though there are other, more popular options for that stuff.
CERN doesn't care about my opinion? How would you know that?
For all you know I'll be responsible for influencing the decision. CERN *should* care about me and the millions like me who are asking for reasonable justification before we commit to billions in equipment for more research. IF they tick off enough folks like me though dismissive folks like you, it might be a long time before they get funding for their new toy.
I just want to do what's best here and despite your claims otherwise, advancements in areas like chemistry and biology could pay off more directly in huge ways. Stuff that a new bigger collider just won't help us with. Once you get one level below the three base subatomic particles, there isn't much to be gained that applies to chemistry... We've been past that point for decades...
Before microbiology and chemistry, we need to understand the basics of the universe - the math and the physics.
Spending money researching ways to put atoms together without understanding how and why do they stick together or don't, is as stupid as trying to run before being able to walk.
It's like "the song that never ends" pouring money down the subatomic physics rat hole you know, it may never really end. Rarely does anything happen in the biological world that requires the huge energies of even a small collider.
So if you where arguing chemistry needs some help with their modeling of molecules and this would help, I'd be OK with your assertion. But we are not even close to such energies in the "natural biological world" so I simply think you are not understanding what you talk about, even at the elementary level.
The longevity or Hubble is still more proof that our machines take to space as a natural medium, with missions routinely serving a multiple of their expected lifetimes. On the other hand, Hubble got a large part of its extended lifetime from manned servicing. In fact if it had not been for manned missions, Hubble would have returned no data at all.
Without getting fixed, Hubble would have returned data just fine, but it would have been of limited use because the optics where out of focus. It was able to collect imagery, it's just that the blurry images would have been no better than what could be obtained from earth based telescopes.
Even with the "repair" missions, Hubble hasn't lived up to it's original designed resolution but has far exceeded expiations in other ways that more and make up for any initial troubles and costs.
Yea, but that doesn't make Trump totally bad, just deferment in some ways and the same in others. Trump has good points, one of the biggest is his propensity to actually attempt to make good on his campaign promises.
My point is, political detractors generally say the same kinds of things about their opponents depending on their party affiliation. Many say bad things about Trump and a lot of what they say is politically driven. Word of advice... IF you have a source that critiques Trump, but never acknowledges he's done some good things, I'd take what they say with a huge grain of salt. If they cannot acknowledge the good, they are biased. Same with those who say Trump can do no wrong, they are obviously biased. The truth is somewhere in between.
But, like it or not, we have limited resources to invest. It's not a false dichotomy, what holds the most promise for the application of the resources we have? An "All of the above" option doesn't exist when the request for resources exceeds the available resources. Plus it would be stupid to start this project unless we are committed to see it though because starting then giving up would be a monumental waste.
All I'm asking is that we evaluate the possible benefits of perusing all kinds of research and make an educated guess as to where the funds would have the largest chance of paying off and choose accordingly. IF it turns out that drilling another 180 miles of tunnels for an accelerator that's capable of say 10X the energy holds the most promise of expanding our scientific knowledge in useful ways, then we invest in it.
All I'm asking is that we at least THINK about how we allocate funds and try to be intelligent in what we invest in as we really do have limited resources here.
And I'd like to point out that Ronald Regan had a lot of nasty things said about him by his detractors when he was in office too.
It seems to me that moral depravity is kind of a prerequisite for holding public office these days anyway. You simply have to be willing to mislead voters over your true intentions to get elected. First, you have to play to your party's radicals (be they right or left) and win the primary, THEN you have to steer a centrist path in the general to gain the votes from the middle to win, while not shunning too many of your base. You end up lying though your teeth at one time or another. Then you spend your career with your finger in the wind trying to figure out what side of what positions will get you reelected the next go around so your "firm moral positions" are constantly changing. That takes a "special" kind of moral compass, which looks all the world like depravity to me.
Trump's election was unique in that when you actually boil it down, he's anything YOU want him to be. He had no political history, no political positions on record. His articulated positions where very much all over the map, calculated so I believe. But unlike most politicos, he's actually trying to do what he promised, in so much as it's in his power. IF he's re-elected it will be because of this..
Which brings us back to Regan... He was a similar personality, and although he had political experience and a record, was largely a blank slate when he got elected as president. Obama enjoyed the same thing his first election. Trump even more so... Seems to me this says that the voters are tired of lying to get votes... 2020 will be *very* interesting if that's true.
Well, for the cost of this monstrosity, what else could we do? Where I like dreams like this, are we SURE that we need the collision energies this new collider will give us? What burning questions will this tool help answer that the old one didn't? Are we sure there isn't any way to improve the current collider without drilling more than 180 miles of tunnels?
Yea, I know that much of what we *could* find out with this thing is nothing more than educated guessing, but I wonder about the cost and schedule needed to build something this size. Is there something else which holds more promise than driving sub-atomic particle physics to higher energies? Are there benefits here? I mean other than providing answers to settle the various bets made by proponents of the various competing theories now?
Maybe the money would be better spent on bio-medical research, genetic manipulation of food crops, Fusion energy commercialization or space exploration? Just a thought guys.
On 9/11? Oh I don't know... Stopping a high jacking, or at least ending it? Even if the crew is dead, I at least would have a chance of surviving being a private pilot. Or more to the place it would matter, when someone starts shooting up some place I happen to be, say a public school or a movie theater?
But I'm just asking for some consideration if you are going to take power from the police. You understand the trade right? Not that I should have to ask...
Yea... Think 2nd amendment... Let me carry concealed in public w/o a license, after all, you admit to tying the hands of law enforcement, untie mine to compensate.
And I'm well educated already, but I'm working on my Master's degree now. None of that will reduce the risk from terrorists though. Nobody survived on 9/11 based on having a better education. In fact, some really well educated folks died that day.
Oh, how wrong. I got sued over a non-compete and where it never went to court
You realize you didn't actually test its enforceability then, right?
That's not the point. My point is you CAN get sued, even if the agreement is flawed and unenforceable. In my case, the agreement failed a number of sanity tests. For one thing, it was boiler plate and they had changed the geographic limits to "the continental USA" and it didn't have a severability clause. They where being idiots and from the best I can tell where suing to spite me, not because they where going to collect a dime.
The issue with this is when you get sued, you have to pay a lawyer to defend yourself, even if the suit isn't going to prevail in court. Coughing up $50/hour to a lawyer, even one who is not trying to soak you for as much as they can (like mine), it doesn't take long to rack up thousands of dollars of fees. Trust me, if you are not rich, it's hard to keep writing checks.
Winning in court is great, but getting your legal bills paid is quite another thing. So in civil law, it's not all about who prevails in court, but can be about the pain of the process. Unless you just like pain, don't go there.
How do I know this? I got sued over a supposed non-compete violation by a past employer. Even though I didn't do what they claimed, had no money they could collect AND the agreement was significantly flawed, it's a painful and expensive experience to deal with civil law suits like this. Take my advice, don't go there if you can help it.
Out of curiosity if you don't mind me asking, what was the company requesting from the court if you were found in violation? Just a financial compensation or was there more to it?
Was the current employer at the time willing to help you in any way, or was it the type you believe would fire you instantly if requested? Presuming you were employed at the time that lawsuit happened.
Only asking as I've managed to never work for a company using non-competes, and of the small handful I applied to with them I was not hired after refusing to agree to them (likely part or all of the reason for not being hired, those were all in my just-getting-started days)
How do I know this? I got sued over a supposed non-compete violation by a past employer. Even though I didn't do what they claimed, had no money they could collect AND the agreement was significantly flawed, it's a painful and expensive experience to deal with civil law suits like this. Take my advice, don't go there if you can help it.
Out of curiosity if you don't mind me asking, what was the company requesting from the court if you were found in violation? Just a financial compensation or was there more to it?
I don't know what they where really trying to get. The liquidated damage clause specified an amount that was more than twice my annual salary and they where asking for that plus legal fees and actual damages on top of that. I suspect that they where throwing everything they could think of at the court to see if anything stuck or if I knuckled under and agreed to something stupid. Looking back, my impression is that I really ticked them off when I quit after one of the owners had yelled and thrown stuff at me in a private office so, not having any other job lined up I formally quit by the end of the day. Yes, it was that bad and I didn't feel physically safe working there anymore. I suspect, though I don't know, that the lawsuit was more about harassment than any hope of collecting a penny from me.
Was the current employer at the time willing to help you in any way, or was it the type you believe would fire you instantly if requested? Presuming you were employed at the time that lawsuit happened.
Interestingly enough, they didn't list my current employer in their lawsuit, which would have been customary, but they where alleging that I was working for ANOTHER of their customers, not the my employer. My current employer didn't know, and I didn't tell them.
Only asking as I've managed to never work for a company using non-competes, and of the small handful I applied to with them I was not hired after refusing to agree to them (likely part or all of the reason for not being hired, those were all in my just-getting-started days)
I've been very careful since that experience to avoid non-competes. I don't give out legal advice, but I recommend that everybody consult a competent lawyer before signing them and avoid them if you can.
In the end of my experience, it actually turned out to be a wash money wise. I managed to get unemployment compensation even though I had quit. It was found that I quit with cause, not because I was physically threatened (I couldn't prove that w/o witnesses or some kind of physical evidence of assault) but because they didn't follow Federal wage laws and had to pay me back for my overtime (plus they got fined I think). If that wasn't enough, the whole thing didn't come to an end until I got the hot head on tape telling a prospective employer (really a Private Investiga
... might be time to move all my domains to another company.
My friend who was a GoDaddy customer for over a decade did just that a month ago. Mainly because they kept black holing his domains because of THEIR code change.
He ran a business, and the website going down was a BAD thing for him. After nearly a decade of running on this hosting service, having not made any changes to his website for over 3 months all of a sudden GoDaddy TOSed him for excessive CPU usage, "No you may not access any of your data thank you". A day on the phone later, they restore him after he pleads with their customer support and appeals to his long record of service. He decides to make a backup of everything now, bad call, he gets TOSed again the next day, this time they won't restore him.
He got to looking at his backups and notices that what happened was GoDaddy CHANGED their backup processes and modified his system by applying patches. Anytime he ran backups, the CPU usage would spike. So, because he had subscribed to GoDaddy's backup service AND then dared to actually run a backup manually the bug they installed caused them to TOS him.
He's not on GoDaddy now, after decades of trouble free service. Their loss..
Your language shows your lack of the legal framework. Local is a muicipality, like a city or town. You apparently mean at the state level.
My advice is don't take legal advice from the internet, hire a lawyer. Google isn't good enough here, you actually need a licensed attorney to determine what the law says where you live.
Also, "local jurisdiction" obviously means "The laws in effect where you are" which include city, county, state, and federal regulations. So yes, not just city laws, but the city's laws, the county's laws, the state's laws and the federal laws all can govern non-compete enforcement. A local Lawyer will (or should) know how this affects your Non-Compete questions. My experience is my experience, and paying past employees to not work is NOT required for non-competes where I lived, according to my lawyer. This may not be true where you live...
Non-competes have nothing to do with "right to work" laws. Right to work simply makes employer/employee relationships "at will" for both sides. It also means that the employee cannot be forced to be a union member as a condition of employment. Non-compete agreements are not affected by any right to work laws that I know of.
I.E. Take my advice, get a lawyer to give you legal advice before you sign any contract and certainly before you choose to break such a contract. Defending yourself from civil lawsuits is an expensive and time consuming process. You may win, of course, but ask yourself if it's worth the trouble.
In general, non-competes for non-executive employees are not enforceable. I can't think of a single case where a noncompete against a developer has been upheld in court.
Oh, how wrong. I got sued over a non-compete and where it never went to court, just paying the legal fees alone about bankrupted me. They ARE enforceable in some jurisdictions if they are properly written and even if you think it would be stupid to sue over, that doesn't mean your former employer sees it the same way. My advice to you is to pay a LAWYER for advice if you intend to break a non-compete, no matter where you live or how bad the agreement seems. Understand what you are risking in your jurisdiction and don't take legal advice from Google or Slashdot posts, get a lawyer and pay them, then follow their advice.
Non competes are hardly enforceable. It might be a legal battle if you are a CEO that ran off with trade secrets to start a new company, but a guy making 40k? Please, no one gives a fuck what you do, they only wrote it in the contract because people fall for it.
Not always.. I was making $43K when I quit an employer back in 2000... They sued me over some supposed non-compete violation, even though I had no money (I was unemployed and had no assets other than my home and car) and didn't actually DO what they claimed. Yea, they where being stupid and didn't collect one red cent from me, but I had to cough up a pile of money to retain the lawyer I needed to defend myself.
My one bit of advice is to GET A LAWYER to look before you sign any agreement, and don't be stupid about breaking such an agreement w/o getting licensed legal advice. I'd hate to think where I'd be right now if they actually had had cause to sue me and won a judgment. Be careful, don't get sued. It's no fun and very expensive.
Actually, this is pretty much required. You'd need to have some pretty special cases for a judge to enforce a non-compete that lacks compensation.
As such, non-competes are actually very good for the employees -- they are golden handcuffs.
Um.. Depends on the local jurisdiction's stance on non-competes. All that is required in some jurisdictions is that you be compensated to sign the agreement and "continued employment" can be sufficient compensation in some cases. I know it is in Kansas.
How do I know this? I got sued over a supposed non-compete violation by a past employer. Even though I didn't do what they claimed, had no money they could collect AND the agreement was significantly flawed, it's a painful and expensive experience to deal with civil law suits like this. Take my advice, don't go there if you can help it.
Slashdot Mirror
Awh come on folks.. This is how this game is played, or didn't you understand?
Anybody in Congress, in either house, can submit bills that say ANYTHING they wish. So you get elected and to "keep" your campaign promises you show up the first week, toss you bill into the growing pile of bills errr Campaign promises that everybody knows will never make it out of committee. They hit the floor, get referred to the appropriate committee and get sent into the committee's inbox to die.
The only way you get a bill out of committee is to have enough pull by getting enough of your cohorts to agree to pull it up. If leadership doesn't want it, it isn't going anywhere but the circular file next to the desk in about 2 years. Everybody in Congress knows how this works.
In this case, Rubio is doing this, hoping to get PR support to make something happen, but chances are it's going to die when the next congress is seated in 2021. It's next to meaningless, except for election ad material in about 2 years when he has to start his next campaign.
They can publish all the "feel good" guidelines they want. Until they can effectively and promptly enforce consistent guidelines, it's all marketing drivel aimed at keeping the lawyers and regulators at bay.
Exactly this. They have all sorts of rules and guidelines but we all know that unless the PR $#!+ hits the fan they don't enforce them regularly. They are in the business of selling ads and as long as they are not getting raked over the coals for something, they don't have the resources to police everybody. Just keeping porn at bay is a full time job, even though there are other, more popular options for that stuff.
CERN doesn't care about my opinion? How would you know that?
For all you know I'll be responsible for influencing the decision. CERN *should* care about me and the millions like me who are asking for reasonable justification before we commit to billions in equipment for more research. IF they tick off enough folks like me though dismissive folks like you, it might be a long time before they get funding for their new toy.
I just want to do what's best here and despite your claims otherwise, advancements in areas like chemistry and biology could pay off more directly in huge ways. Stuff that a new bigger collider just won't help us with. Once you get one level below the three base subatomic particles, there isn't much to be gained that applies to chemistry... We've been past that point for decades...
Before microbiology and chemistry, we need to understand the basics of the universe - the math and the physics. Spending money researching ways to put atoms together without understanding how and why do they stick together or don't, is as stupid as trying to run before being able to walk.
It's like "the song that never ends" pouring money down the subatomic physics rat hole you know, it may never really end. Rarely does anything happen in the biological world that requires the huge energies of even a small collider.
So if you where arguing chemistry needs some help with their modeling of molecules and this would help, I'd be OK with your assertion. But we are not even close to such energies in the "natural biological world" so I simply think you are not understanding what you talk about, even at the elementary level.
The longevity or Hubble is still more proof that our machines take to space as a natural medium, with missions routinely serving a multiple of their expected lifetimes. On the other hand, Hubble got a large part of its extended lifetime from manned servicing. In fact if it had not been for manned missions, Hubble would have returned no data at all.
Without getting fixed, Hubble would have returned data just fine, but it would have been of limited use because the optics where out of focus. It was able to collect imagery, it's just that the blurry images would have been no better than what could be obtained from earth based telescopes.
Even with the "repair" missions, Hubble hasn't lived up to it's original designed resolution but has far exceeded expiations in other ways that more and make up for any initial troubles and costs.
Yea, but that doesn't make Trump totally bad, just deferment in some ways and the same in others. Trump has good points, one of the biggest is his propensity to actually attempt to make good on his campaign promises.
My point is, political detractors generally say the same kinds of things about their opponents depending on their party affiliation. Many say bad things about Trump and a lot of what they say is politically driven. Word of advice... IF you have a source that critiques Trump, but never acknowledges he's done some good things, I'd take what they say with a huge grain of salt. If they cannot acknowledge the good, they are biased. Same with those who say Trump can do no wrong, they are obviously biased. The truth is somewhere in between.
But, like it or not, we have limited resources to invest. It's not a false dichotomy, what holds the most promise for the application of the resources we have? An "All of the above" option doesn't exist when the request for resources exceeds the available resources. Plus it would be stupid to start this project unless we are committed to see it though because starting then giving up would be a monumental waste.
All I'm asking is that we evaluate the possible benefits of perusing all kinds of research and make an educated guess as to where the funds would have the largest chance of paying off and choose accordingly. IF it turns out that drilling another 180 miles of tunnels for an accelerator that's capable of say 10X the energy holds the most promise of expanding our scientific knowledge in useful ways, then we invest in it.
All I'm asking is that we at least THINK about how we allocate funds and try to be intelligent in what we invest in as we really do have limited resources here.
And I'd like to point out that Ronald Regan had a lot of nasty things said about him by his detractors when he was in office too.
It seems to me that moral depravity is kind of a prerequisite for holding public office these days anyway. You simply have to be willing to mislead voters over your true intentions to get elected. First, you have to play to your party's radicals (be they right or left) and win the primary, THEN you have to steer a centrist path in the general to gain the votes from the middle to win, while not shunning too many of your base. You end up lying though your teeth at one time or another. Then you spend your career with your finger in the wind trying to figure out what side of what positions will get you reelected the next go around so your "firm moral positions" are constantly changing. That takes a "special" kind of moral compass, which looks all the world like depravity to me.
Trump's election was unique in that when you actually boil it down, he's anything YOU want him to be. He had no political history, no political positions on record. His articulated positions where very much all over the map, calculated so I believe. But unlike most politicos, he's actually trying to do what he promised, in so much as it's in his power. IF he's re-elected it will be because of this..
Which brings us back to Regan... He was a similar personality, and although he had political experience and a record, was largely a blank slate when he got elected as president. Obama enjoyed the same thing his first election. Trump even more so... Seems to me this says that the voters are tired of lying to get votes... 2020 will be *very* interesting if that's true.
Well, for the cost of this monstrosity, what else could we do? Where I like dreams like this, are we SURE that we need the collision energies this new collider will give us? What burning questions will this tool help answer that the old one didn't? Are we sure there isn't any way to improve the current collider without drilling more than 180 miles of tunnels?
Yea, I know that much of what we *could* find out with this thing is nothing more than educated guessing, but I wonder about the cost and schedule needed to build something this size. Is there something else which holds more promise than driving sub-atomic particle physics to higher energies? Are there benefits here? I mean other than providing answers to settle the various bets made by proponents of the various competing theories now?
Maybe the money would be better spent on bio-medical research, genetic manipulation of food crops, Fusion energy commercialization or space exploration? Just a thought guys.
What about the spray-on tan that you-know-who uses?
No, and he's healthy as a horse...
So, you need a gun to take out a few assholes with box-cutters?
Yes. I'm not looking for a fair fight in this case, just a quick one.
On 9/11? Oh I don't know... Stopping a high jacking, or at least ending it? Even if the crew is dead, I at least would have a chance of surviving being a private pilot. Or more to the place it would matter, when someone starts shooting up some place I happen to be, say a public school or a movie theater?
But I'm just asking for some consideration if you are going to take power from the police. You understand the trade right? Not that I should have to ask...
Yea... Think 2nd amendment... Let me carry concealed in public w/o a license, after all, you admit to tying the hands of law enforcement, untie mine to compensate.
And I'm well educated already, but I'm working on my Master's degree now. None of that will reduce the risk from terrorists though. Nobody survived on 9/11 based on having a better education. In fact, some really well educated folks died that day.
At least let me arm myself then... :)
IF you expect me to defend myself, don't take away the best tools I have to do the job. Thank you!
Shouldn't hold my breath, probably won't last long, Will get overturned soon.
This was my first thought. The judge in question has limited authority and until this decision survives appeal it's only impacting a limited area.
True security requires two of the following..
1. Something that I am (biometrics)
2. Something that I know (password)
3. Something that I have (A physical login token)
You can do three and be a bit more secure if you like.
Oh, how wrong. I got sued over a non-compete and where it never went to court
You realize you didn't actually test its enforceability then, right?
That's not the point. My point is you CAN get sued, even if the agreement is flawed and unenforceable. In my case, the agreement failed a number of sanity tests. For one thing, it was boiler plate and they had changed the geographic limits to "the continental USA" and it didn't have a severability clause. They where being idiots and from the best I can tell where suing to spite me, not because they where going to collect a dime.
The issue with this is when you get sued, you have to pay a lawyer to defend yourself, even if the suit isn't going to prevail in court. Coughing up $50/hour to a lawyer, even one who is not trying to soak you for as much as they can (like mine), it doesn't take long to rack up thousands of dollars of fees. Trust me, if you are not rich, it's hard to keep writing checks.
Winning in court is great, but getting your legal bills paid is quite another thing. So in civil law, it's not all about who prevails in court, but can be about the pain of the process. Unless you just like pain, don't go there.
How do I know this? I got sued over a supposed non-compete violation by a past employer. Even though I didn't do what they claimed, had no money they could collect AND the agreement was significantly flawed, it's a painful and expensive experience to deal with civil law suits like this. Take my advice, don't go there if you can help it.
Out of curiosity if you don't mind me asking, what was the company requesting from the court if you were found in violation? Just a financial compensation or was there more to it?
Was the current employer at the time willing to help you in any way, or was it the type you believe would fire you instantly if requested? Presuming you were employed at the time that lawsuit happened.
Only asking as I've managed to never work for a company using non-competes, and of the small handful I applied to with them I was not hired after refusing to agree to them (likely part or all of the reason for not being hired, those were all in my just-getting-started days)
How do I know this? I got sued over a supposed non-compete violation by a past employer. Even though I didn't do what they claimed, had no money they could collect AND the agreement was significantly flawed, it's a painful and expensive experience to deal with civil law suits like this. Take my advice, don't go there if you can help it.
Out of curiosity if you don't mind me asking, what was the company requesting from the court if you were found in violation? Just a financial compensation or was there more to it?
I don't know what they where really trying to get. The liquidated damage clause specified an amount that was more than twice my annual salary and they where asking for that plus legal fees and actual damages on top of that. I suspect that they where throwing everything they could think of at the court to see if anything stuck or if I knuckled under and agreed to something stupid. Looking back, my impression is that I really ticked them off when I quit after one of the owners had yelled and thrown stuff at me in a private office so, not having any other job lined up I formally quit by the end of the day. Yes, it was that bad and I didn't feel physically safe working there anymore. I suspect, though I don't know, that the lawsuit was more about harassment than any hope of collecting a penny from me.
Was the current employer at the time willing to help you in any way, or was it the type you believe would fire you instantly if requested? Presuming you were employed at the time that lawsuit happened.
Interestingly enough, they didn't list my current employer in their lawsuit, which would have been customary, but they where alleging that I was working for ANOTHER of their customers, not the my employer. My current employer didn't know, and I didn't tell them.
Only asking as I've managed to never work for a company using non-competes, and of the small handful I applied to with them I was not hired after refusing to agree to them (likely part or all of the reason for not being hired, those were all in my just-getting-started days)
I've been very careful since that experience to avoid non-competes. I don't give out legal advice, but I recommend that everybody consult a competent lawyer before signing them and avoid them if you can.
In the end of my experience, it actually turned out to be a wash money wise. I managed to get unemployment compensation even though I had quit. It was found that I quit with cause, not because I was physically threatened (I couldn't prove that w/o witnesses or some kind of physical evidence of assault) but because they didn't follow Federal wage laws and had to pay me back for my overtime (plus they got fined I think). If that wasn't enough, the whole thing didn't come to an end until I got the hot head on tape telling a prospective employer (really a Private Investiga
... might be time to move all my domains to another company.
My friend who was a GoDaddy customer for over a decade did just that a month ago. Mainly because they kept black holing his domains because of THEIR code change.
He ran a business, and the website going down was a BAD thing for him. After nearly a decade of running on this hosting service, having not made any changes to his website for over 3 months all of a sudden GoDaddy TOSed him for excessive CPU usage, "No you may not access any of your data thank you". A day on the phone later, they restore him after he pleads with their customer support and appeals to his long record of service. He decides to make a backup of everything now, bad call, he gets TOSed again the next day, this time they won't restore him.
He got to looking at his backups and notices that what happened was GoDaddy CHANGED their backup processes and modified his system by applying patches. Anytime he ran backups, the CPU usage would spike. So, because he had subscribed to GoDaddy's backup service AND then dared to actually run a backup manually the bug they installed caused them to TOS him.
He's not on GoDaddy now, after decades of trouble free service. Their loss..
Your language shows your lack of the legal framework. Local is a muicipality, like a city or town. You apparently mean at the state level.
My advice is don't take legal advice from the internet, hire a lawyer. Google isn't good enough here, you actually need a licensed attorney to determine what the law says where you live.
Also, "local jurisdiction" obviously means "The laws in effect where you are" which include city, county, state, and federal regulations. So yes, not just city laws, but the city's laws, the county's laws, the state's laws and the federal laws all can govern non-compete enforcement. A local Lawyer will (or should) know how this affects your Non-Compete questions. My experience is my experience, and paying past employees to not work is NOT required for non-competes where I lived, according to my lawyer. This may not be true where you live...
Non-competes have nothing to do with "right to work" laws. Right to work simply makes employer/employee relationships "at will" for both sides. It also means that the employee cannot be forced to be a union member as a condition of employment. Non-compete agreements are not affected by any right to work laws that I know of.
I.E. Take my advice, get a lawyer to give you legal advice before you sign any contract and certainly before you choose to break such a contract. Defending yourself from civil lawsuits is an expensive and time consuming process. You may win, of course, but ask yourself if it's worth the trouble.
In general, non-competes for non-executive employees are not enforceable. I can't think of a single case where a noncompete against a developer has been upheld in court.
Oh, how wrong. I got sued over a non-compete and where it never went to court, just paying the legal fees alone about bankrupted me. They ARE enforceable in some jurisdictions if they are properly written and even if you think it would be stupid to sue over, that doesn't mean your former employer sees it the same way. My advice to you is to pay a LAWYER for advice if you intend to break a non-compete, no matter where you live or how bad the agreement seems. Understand what you are risking in your jurisdiction and don't take legal advice from Google or Slashdot posts, get a lawyer and pay them, then follow their advice.
Non competes are hardly enforceable. It might be a legal battle if you are a CEO that ran off with trade secrets to start a new company, but a guy making 40k? Please, no one gives a fuck what you do, they only wrote it in the contract because people fall for it.
Not always.. I was making $43K when I quit an employer back in 2000... They sued me over some supposed non-compete violation, even though I had no money (I was unemployed and had no assets other than my home and car) and didn't actually DO what they claimed. Yea, they where being stupid and didn't collect one red cent from me, but I had to cough up a pile of money to retain the lawyer I needed to defend myself.
My one bit of advice is to GET A LAWYER to look before you sign any agreement, and don't be stupid about breaking such an agreement w/o getting licensed legal advice. I'd hate to think where I'd be right now if they actually had had cause to sue me and won a judgment. Be careful, don't get sued. It's no fun and very expensive.
Actually, this is pretty much required. You'd need to have some pretty special cases for a judge to enforce a non-compete that lacks compensation.
As such, non-competes are actually very good for the employees -- they are golden handcuffs.
Um.. Depends on the local jurisdiction's stance on non-competes. All that is required in some jurisdictions is that you be compensated to sign the agreement and "continued employment" can be sufficient compensation in some cases. I know it is in Kansas.
How do I know this? I got sued over a supposed non-compete violation by a past employer. Even though I didn't do what they claimed, had no money they could collect AND the agreement was significantly flawed, it's a painful and expensive experience to deal with civil law suits like this. Take my advice, don't go there if you can help it.