Love it. The best thing for the economy would be to eliminate this entirely. We have at-will employment in this state already, can't have it both ways.
In 2008, as a professional investment manager, I was handed a 14 page “sales” document with non compete sections and told to sign or be fired. I am a woman, over 50 years old at the time and didn’t need more road blocks to get another job during the time of mass layoffs so I told them to stuff it. Well, guess who had their career come to an abrupt end!
"Supporters say they can curb turnover and protect companies from being raided by competitors..."
Here's another way to curb turnover: Pay more. Henry Ford paid his employees above the prevailing wage rate in the auto industry to avoid this very problem.
Gotta walk a fine line. Forcibly impose noncompetes on employees, and you will lose employees. Forcibly prevent noncompetes by employers, and then all of a sudden employers aren't hiring full-time workers, but the opportunities for contract-work increase.
For your next article on this topic Jon Chesto, would love it if you would list exactly who the biggest members (by market cap) of the "big employer association" are for all Globe subscribers to see. I've been waiting years for the curtain to be pulled back on who is giving (companies) and who is receiving (politicians) the graft$ on this issue. Thanks.
The big employer groups that have pushed for retaining noncompetes in some form in recent years included Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, MassMedic, the Massachusetts High Technology Council, the Massachusetts Business Roundtable. Among the big individual companies that lobbied in the past on this issue to keep noncompetes: EMC (now part of Dell), Boston Scientific, and Fresenius Medical.
The new law is better than the old one, but not good enough.
Here's another way to curb turnover: Pay more. Henry Ford paid his employees above the prevailing wage rate in the auto industry to avoid this very problem.