4 ms·

Why are low skill non-competes bad? You can just lateral into another low skill job in an unrelated industry. It’s not as if you have a huge amount of human ca

Why are low skill non-competes bad? You can just lateral into another low skill job in an unrelated industry. It’s not as if you have a huge amount of human capital sunk into sandwich prep.

kakarot 9y ago
It's often not that easy, and what if people don't want to change industries every time they lose their job? If something like that became standard, it would be used as a tool to further divide our socioeconomic classes. Social pressures from friends, family, children, as well as economic pressures will force people into signing these non-compete contracts. The issue is that, as a member of a overpopulated labor pool, a low-skilled worker has no bargaining power and so without bans on things like non-competes, corporations could walk all over their labor force. That is a social regression.
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
When you go to lunch today, show the people making and serving your food the article and ask them if they'd like to be tied to a non-compete. Ask them if it would be easy to "just lateral into another low skill job in an unrelated industry." It may be rather eye opening for you.
karmajunkie 9y ago
Because low-skill isn't unskilled. Employers know that even in these jobs a modicum of experience gives an applicant a decided advantage in applying for new jobs, and not having it serves as a bar for employment which means that this underpaid labor also has to beat the cost of retraining, then likely accept a below-market training wage to get work. At the same time these clauses reduce the number of potential employers for any given candidate, so any given employer has less incentive to meet a higher salary demand.
zelon88 9y ago
It still causes the same problem. It limits the opportunities people have available to them. Lets say 5 Guys opens up shop right next to Subway and is offering $3 more per hour than Subway. With non-compete's at Subway, those workers would be stuck and there would be no onus on Subway to improve their wages or benefits. Without the non-compete Subway workers would apply for work at 5 Guys, which would force Subway to become a more competitive employer. No matter what rung of the ladder you're on, non-compete's hurt employees and benefit employers just as they were intended to do.
pixl97 9y ago
>It’s not as if you have a huge amount of human capital sunk into sandwich prep. Then why in the blue fuck does Subway need a non-compete in the first place? NC's are suppose to help a company maintain the value in investing in its employees so they are less likely to leave, or to keep said employees from taking customers. In the low value end this make no sense. There is little to no investment in the employee, and there is little risk of the employee taking high value customers.

Why are low skill non-competes bad? You can just lateral into another low skill job in an unrelated industry. It’s not as if you have a huge amount of human capital sunk into sandwich prep.

kakarot 9y ago

It's often not that easy, and what if people don't want to change industries every time they lose their job? If something like that became standard, it would be used as a tool to further divide our socioeconomic classes. Social pressures from friends, family, children, as well as economic pressures will force people into signing these non-compete contracts. The issue is that, as a member of a overpopulated labor pool, a low-skilled worker has no bargaining power and so without bans on things like non-competes, corporations could walk all over their labor force. That is a social regression.

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

When you go to lunch today, show the people making and serving your food the article and ask them if they'd like to be tied to a non-compete. Ask them if it would be easy to "just lateral into another low skill job in an unrelated industry." It may be rather eye opening for you.

karmajunkie 9y ago

Because low-skill isn't unskilled. Employers know that even in these jobs a modicum of experience gives an applicant a decided advantage in applying for new jobs, and not having it serves as a bar for employment which means that this underpaid labor also has to beat the cost of retraining, then likely accept a below-market training wage to get work. At the same time these clauses reduce the number of potential employers for any given candidate, so any given employer has less incentive to meet a higher salary demand.

zelon88 9y ago

It still causes the same problem. It limits the opportunities people have available to them. Lets say 5 Guys opens up shop right next to Subway and is offering $3 more per hour than Subway. With non-compete's at Subway, those workers would be stuck and there would be no onus on Subway to improve their wages or benefits. Without the non-compete Subway workers would apply for work at 5 Guys, which would force Subway to become a more competitive employer. No matter what rung of the ladder you're on, non-compete's hurt employees and benefit employers just as they were intended to do.

pixl97 9y ago

>It’s not as if you have a huge amount of human capital sunk into sandwich prep. Then why in the blue fuck does Subway need a non-compete in the first place? NC's are suppose to help a company maintain the value in investing in its employees so they are less likely to leave, or to keep said employees from taking customers. In the low value end this make no sense. There is little to no investment in the employee, and there is little risk of the employee taking high value customers.