4 ms·
I posted this above, but it applies here too: Non-competes allow employees to get training they otherwise would not get. A non-compete allows a company to make
by AnonymousFan9 10y ago
I posted this above, but it applies here too: Non-competes allow employees to get training they otherwise would not get.
A non-compete allows a company to make an investment in you (in the form of training) with some assurance that you will not immediately turn around post-training and go work for a direct competitor. NDAs/IP assignment agreements do not address this need. If it weren't for non-competes, that investment would be infeasible and we would all be paying our employers for the training we get – either directly, in the form of course fees, or indirectly, in the form of depressed wages during the course of the training.
For a deeper dive on this, see Paul H. Rubin and Peter Shedd, "Human Capital and Covenants Not to Compete," available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/724227?seq=1#page_scan_tab_cont... https://www.jstor.org/stable/724227?seq=1#page_scan_tab_cont....
- RIMR 10y ago>Non-competes allow employees to get training they otherwise would not get. Yeah, because employers refuse to train employees unless they sign a non-compete. It's not that they are unable to provide training, it is that they are unwilling. If Non-competes are banned, then they can start providing better training to more workers because there's no more needless red tape... >A non-compete allows a company to make an investment in you (in the form of training) with some assurance that you will not immediately turn around post-training and go work for a direct competitor. Then why to most non-competes extend 2 years after you leave a company, and why do they get applied to workers who have been with a company for years? You, like many others in this thread, seem to be confusing "experience", a thing the employee owns, with "training" and "know-how", things the employer owns.