<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hearings on Non-Compete Restrictions Set for Next Week</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/09/30/hearings-on-non-compete-restrictions-set-for-next-week/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/09/30/hearings-on-non-compete-restrictions-set-for-next-week/</link>
	<description>Business + Technology in the Exponential Economy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:54:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: JR</title>
		<link>http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/09/30/hearings-on-non-compete-restrictions-set-for-next-week/comment-page-1/#comment-84607</link>
		<dc:creator>JR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:54:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xconomy.com/?p=43862#comment-84607</guid>
		<description>Non-competes are a real problem for employees below the executive level. Companies can put some pretty ridiculous verbiage in front of new hires that would prohibit them from working at any competitor, customer or a very broadly defined industry.  California, on the other hand, totally bans them.  Yet they continually excell in the high tech industry over MA.  These documents should be banned outright unless you are a member of the executive staff.

To think that there is a correlation between income and proprietary knowledge is also absurd.  A simple sales guy will blow the income levels away.  Yet, he needs to sign a non-compete.  Why?  Because the company fears he&#039;ll steal their customers.  But, they can tap him on the shoulder after a bad quarter or year and send him packing with handcuffs that limit his ability to find a new position. Makes no sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Non-competes are a real problem for employees below the executive level. Companies can put some pretty ridiculous verbiage in front of new hires that would prohibit them from working at any competitor, customer or a very broadly defined industry.  California, on the other hand, totally bans them.  Yet they continually excell in the high tech industry over MA.  These documents should be banned outright unless you are a member of the executive staff.</p>
<p>To think that there is a correlation between income and proprietary knowledge is also absurd.  A simple sales guy will blow the income levels away.  Yet, he needs to sign a non-compete.  Why?  Because the company fears he’ll steal their customers.  But, they can tap him on the shoulder after a bad quarter or year and send him packing with handcuffs that limit his ability to find a new position. Makes no sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mass. House Bill 1794 to limit non-competes &#171; Software Developers Guild</title>
		<link>http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/09/30/hearings-on-non-compete-restrictions-set-for-next-week/comment-page-1/#comment-84601</link>
		<dc:creator>Mass. House Bill 1794 to limit non-competes &#171; Software Developers Guild</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:46:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xconomy.com/?p=43862#comment-84601</guid>
		<description>[...] an interesting perspective on the bill, see this article.   Comments [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] an interesting perspective on the bill, see this article.   Comments [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

