4 ms·
>should be banned outright almost but not quite. > there is zero legitimate reason that an employer should have any say whatsoever on what someone does after
by jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
>should be banned outright
almost but not quite.
> there is zero legitimate reason that an employer should have any say whatsoever on what someone does after that employer stops paying them.
Agreed.
However, non-competes make prefect sense when a company is bought/sold. If I own a Marketing firm, and sell it to you, it would be perfectly reasonable, as part of that sale, for you to require me to sign a non-compete. Otherwise I could rent an office across town, call up all my old customers (the ones you just payed a lot of money to get) and convince them to switch to my new company and leave you high and dry.
- FireBeyond 8y ago> However, non-competes make prefect sense when a company is bought/sold. If I own a Marketing firm, and sell it to you, it would be perfectly reasonable, as part of that sale, for you to require me to sign a non-compete. Otherwise I could rent an office across town, call up all my old customers (the ones you just payed a lot of money to get) and convince them to switch to my new company and leave you high and dry. Ironically, this happens fairly regularly. Companies will hire someone because of their "Rolodex", and the hope / belief / nudge wink that they will do exactly that, bring "their" customers to you.
- Finnucane 8y agoBut that's not a condition of employment, that's a deal you make as a business owner. As a condition of employment, it has no reason to exist other than as a tool for businesses to abuse workers.
- jaxtellerSoA 8y ago100% agree that as a condition of employment it makes zero sense.