4 ms·
There is a disincentive, at least when employees recognize what they are signing and how it limits their options. Informed workers that think ahead would see i
by stretchwithme 11y ago
There is a disincentive, at least when employees recognize what they are signing and how it limits their options. Informed workers that think ahead would see it as a more restrictive job.
Of course, its usually slapped in front of them AFTER they've accepted a job. Having accepted a straightforward offer in good faith, the terms are then altered, slightly.
Perhaps it should be more clearly stated in a written offer that must be considered before accepting.
And perhaps that's why its better to not allow these. It makes it easier for employer and employees to deal with each other. And it makes companies compete more on merit, rather than manipulation.
It doesn't hurt the companies ability to compete with each other, as long as they all live under the same rules.
- mdpopescu 11y agoHaving accepted me as an employee, the company also has invested some resources and is reluctant to lose me. As such, I never had problems removing any annoying clauses in contracts. (True, being from a former communist country my tolerance to restrictive clauses is much higher than that of US citizens, so maybe that accounts for the difference.)