The good news is that most employers don't actually try to enforce non-competes unless the violation is egregious (like poaching clients).
This particular case might be a cynical and calculated action to, as the article says, "send a message" to other young employees looking to move on. It could be the aggressor here has been suffering from a brain drain and this is how they've decided to deal with it.
I don't know that this is good news. Limited enforcement is why they can get away with such clauses in the first place. A remarkable number of people will be placated by this when they really shouldn't.
Yeah, I realize that many non-competes don't get enforced, but the fact is that those companies will continue to demand them because the non-compete protects them in a small percentage of cases (regardless of its impact on their employees). The companies have zero downside from the NC but it can significantly affect workers who may feel they have no choice but to sign it if they want a job. Hell, many of the non-competes are likely unenforceable, but so few people ever push back on them their legality is never tested.
Exactly, and most employees are never going to be in a position to push back, especially in a field like journalism, where people are happy just to have a job
The way things are right now, employees will simply use their judgement to determine whether or not it is "safe" to violate "the letter" of a non-compete clause in their contract.
That usually works out just fine, until it doesn't :-(
Hopefully the public shame of more stories like this will encourage more employers to think twice about draconian non-compete clauses.
Actually, many clients will request this. The practice of winning a bid from another company and then just going and hiring the team that works on that project away from your competitor is far too common, and this helps stop it from happening.
I think it's more that if they replace a vendor, they are replacing them for a reason and don't want the same idiots to bring the same bad habits back with them.
This particular case might be a cynical and calculated action to, as the article says, "send a message" to other young employees looking to move on. It could be the aggressor here has been suffering from a brain drain and this is how they've decided to deal with it.