There are plenty of reasons to care, off the top of my head 1) are they working for competitors 2) are they more likely to burnout or not stay in the role, 3) can you really trust them given their deception, etc
There's generally non-compete clauses in employment contracts in my experience. I think #2 is a valid concern. And #3 only is if they were deceitful, which isn't always the case when someone is working multiple jobs.
> There's generally non-compete clauses in employment contracts in my experience.
Non-competes are illegal or unenforceable in the following US states: California, North Dakota, the District of Columbia, Oklahoma, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Washington.
Also, if a company asks you to sign one, you can say no. I always do.
Non-competes in CA & CO are totally enforceable if:
1 - you are a manager.
2 - you are selling a company.
If you are a coder or regular employee, then no, the non-competes are not worth the paper they are printed on.
> The Jimmy John’s agreement prohibited employees during their employment and for two years afterward from working at any other business that sells “submarine, hero-type, deli-style, pita, and/or wrapped or rolled sandwiches” within 2 miles of any Jimmy John’s shop in the United States, according to Madigan’s lawsuit. An agreement in effect from 2007 to 2012 extended that to 3 miles.
How does that "ban them from working at at[sic] a competitor at the same time"? So, you fire them. They'll still have the other job and can get another.
Im not sure what part you are confused by. Is it the word ban?
My employer can also ban me from stealing money or tools. If they discover it, they can legally fire me.
You stated that non-competes are illegal. This is incorrect in the context of moonlighting with competitors or concurrent employment (with anyone during working hours). Those types of non-competes are completely legal.
I expect we will see a rise in the number of contracts that explicitly state no other employment during business hours.
Section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code provides that "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void."
> Section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code provides that "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void."
That is the letter of the law, but that has not been the interpretation (re: a 2020 appellate ruling mentions this)
I think it falls under lying by omission. A company will want to know if you intend to hold another full time job. The applicant knows that, that's why they don't mention it. Avoiding multiply employed candidates risks unfair discrimination against the unicorn that can thrive in two roles - but companies already discriminate for more absurd reasons.
