3 ms·

That's edging really close to a 'freedom is slavery' argument right there.

• tptacek 18y ago
  No it isn't. I don't agree with the argument, but it's not insane. What the commenter is saying is that if candidate employees are in competition for jobs with candidates from other jurisdictions where noncompetes are enforceable, and many people don't really care about noncompetes, the candidates in the places with enforceable noncompetes have a market advantage. They can exchange a noncompete agreement for job opportunities. The commenter is making the point that you always had the freedom not to sign noncompetes, even when they were enforceable, just as you have the freedom not to work 70 hour weeks for a $150k salaried job: don't accept the job. But you probably want the opportunity to work the odd 70 hour week, if it advances your career. For a slippery-slope alternative to the "freedom" you're talking about, see France in the mid-90's, and try to start a competitive software shop there. Like I said, I disagree with the commenter, because noncompetes are wildly abused in our industry. But I think reasonable people can disagree.
  • stcredzero 18y ago
    Why would it have been a problem to start a software shop in the mid 90's in France? 35 hour workweek? Other government mandated benefits? Not saying it wasn't. I just want to know exactly what the referent is.
• byrneseyeview 18y ago
  Um, the statement "You are not allowed to freely agree to X" is clearly limiting your freedom, even if X is "limit your freedom in exchange for something."
  • DenisM 18y ago
    You are not allowed to sell yourself into slavery. Do you feel oppressed yet?