4 ms·
There's a much simpler solution. No non-competes at all. They only serve employers and create small market failures.
by alexrtan 7y ago
There's a much simpler solution. No non-competes at all. They only serve employers and create small market failures.
- jondubois 7y agoI agree. Non-competes should be seen as a direct contradiction of antitrust laws. It's a blatant violation of freedom and it hurts the economy. It's wrong regardless of skill level. If the worker is skilled, then it is their right to choose what they do with it. If investors have the right to invest their capital in two competing companies at the same time (or hundreds of competitors; as it happens when they invest in stock indexes like S&P500), then definitely a worker should be allowed to work for two competitors at the same time. Workers should be allowed to put themselves in positions of leverage using their skills as a bargaining tool.
- crdoconnor 7y agoIt blows my mind that there are people who defend capitalism on the basis that competition is an unalloyed good but will still defend noncompetes. I don't see how these positions are reconcilable.
- olliej 7y agoThe problem is that people see the noncompete clause, and they're told about the non-compete clause, most people do not know/understand that it isn't enforceable. I have had noncompete clauses in my employment contracts in CA, where they are not enforceable. I know that they're not, but I work in tech where must people are aware of bullshit like this being attempted.