3 ms·
I think because the issue seems too theoretical to most people. I'm betting that most people have never felt a negative impact from forced arbitration clauses,
by function_seven 7y ago
I think because the issue seems too theoretical to most people. I'm betting that most people have never felt a negative impact from forced arbitration clauses, or non-compete agreements. Anecdotally, I've never once felt the need to take a company to court, only to be stymied by an arbitration clause. Nor have I been prevented from getting hired due to a non-compete. And I don't think I know anyone who has.
I'm not saying these aren't valid and serious issues. Just that they're not day-to-day matters in the same way that healthcare, taxes, gas prices, or housing costs are. They're the type of issues that nobody thinks about until it bites them one day.
- vsskanth 7y agospeaking from my personal experience, I've seen non-competes being pretty pervasive outside tech and some states like CA or MA, I've had competitors flat out refuse to proceed with an interview because I had a non-compete. whether it is enforceable is a different question but it does reduce opportunities. Like you said, it's probably not what the majority of people are experiencing.
- laughinghan 7y agoCA or MA? Noncompetes have historically been completely unenforceable in CA, whereas until recently MA had a pretty oppressive noncompete regime. That contrast is actually commonly credited with why Silicon Valley overtook Route 128 in technological innovation: https://www.vox.com/2016/4/12/11349248/noncompetes-silicon-valley-route-128 https://www.vox.com/2016/4/12/11349248/noncompetes-silicon-v...
- vsskanth 7y agothanks for the info, wasn't aware of the historical context.