this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
400 points (99.3% liked)

Work Reform

10011 readers
211 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I haven't found the exact date, but it'll be effective ~~130~~ 120 days after publishing in the federal register.

Edit: typo

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ioughttamow@kbin.run 30 points 6 months ago (3 children)

My personal opinion is that ndas should require the business to continue paying the employees wage and offering a benefits package as though they were employed. The wage should increase by a ramping percentage each year

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 months ago

Actually important NDAs do this - they'll just pay you to come in (or at least not work anywhere else) until the knowledge you had is irrelevant... and if the action that the NDA would prevent is legitimately damaging there do exist laws around corporate espionage that already cover these breeches. If you outright steal legitimately protected information from an employer (a common example is customer lists) and resell it... an NDA isn't needed. NDAs have traditionally just been used as a scare tactic to contain information that isn't legitimately protected... and, of course, to unfairly punish ex-employees for leaving.

[–] whereisk@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

That's the idea behind CEOs golden parachutes.

[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

I had an optional non-compete clause in one of my first jobs, but it was rarely activated by the employer, only for senior management and above. It also included payment for the period (iirk third of your salary for 2 years). In my EU country a non-compete without payment wouldn’t have been legal, not sure how it is/was in the US