Non-competes (including stealth non-competes like the OP mentioned) are being abused by US employers seeking leverage over their employees.

In fact, 12% of hourly workers earning $20 or less had to sign non-competes. These workers do not have access to corporate secrets. It simply reduces their power to negotiate with their employer.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2021/non-compete-cont...

▲

cam_l 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Australia is straight up banning non competes for anyone earning under $175k, for this reason.

They are also tightening up the contract law around non competes to reduce the impact of the scare tactics employers have been using to bind low level employees with unenforceable, but still litigable, contract terms.

And scare tactics are really all they are (in this country), because even before they do this the courts have a track record in this country of looking very dimly on overly broad or restrictive non compete 'agreements'.

	▲	bravesoul2 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Australia fair work is a beast. They just keep adding to it.

▲

aforwardslash 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not only in the US; without going into too much detail, many countries in south America and Africa have strong business connections with the US, and it is quite common to see the ever-abusive dumb dumb US contract templates being used in those countries, even when local law differs significantly. Usually, the posture is "we can do whatever you want and you keep your mouth shut, or else we'll sue you for everything". I loathe organizations with these kind of contracts.

▲

bobbruno 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If the law has specific clauses about this that the contract disrespects, these conditions are not worth the paper they are written on.

At least in Brazil you can't enforce something the law doesn't allow in a contract - that clause would be considered void without nullifying the contract. And Labour law in Brazil leans (or used to lean) more in favor of the employee,so yes, the law would win. Another aspect there is that unions are more common than in the US, and they will help in such cases.

▲

thfuran 17 hours ago | parent [-]

>If the law has specific clauses about this that the contract disrespects, these conditions are not worth the paper they are written on

Unless the law also has severe penalty for including such terms, of course they are. They don't need to dissuade 100% of people from breaking 100% of the terms to be of use to the company.

	▲	14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

aforwardslash 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

On a personal note, I once was presented with such a (US) contract that also required me to list every NDA I had signed to date; Since then, I always assume most US lawyers are beyond incompetent.

▲

bruce511 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's funny. Some NDAs I've signed prohibit you from mentioning any contact with the company involved (thus you're not allowed to mention the NDA) so my answer would be;

"Under the terms of NDAs I have signed I am not free to disclose that list."

▲

anticensor 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Couldn't the employer convert that into a filter?

▲

bruce511 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. Can you elaborate?

	▲	joshjdr 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		From a prospective employer’s perspective: Is the candidate going to respect the NDA you’re planning to ask them to sign? Similar to asking the candidate what they dislike about their previous boss. Their response may indicate how they’ll talk about you someday.

▲

anonzzzies 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

We have been sued over signed contracts many times over the 3 decades we are in business. Almost only by US companies, but well, shitty for them, Dutch judges (and lawyers) rather laugh about those overbearing things in those contracts. We don't even need a lawyer before we sign them as we know they are worth nothing here. And that's been tested many times now. Fyi; we didn't break them; it's just that we are tech troubleshooters-for-hire and we work for many companies (1000s) over time; the suing is always the paranoid delusions were the contract states we cannot provide our services for any competitors of them or even companies that are not competing but in the same market forever and ever. F offfff. But yeah, it costs them a lot of money and we are insured for it (which is cheap compared); we don't waste any time or money on this.