3 ms·

> It seems a bit silly to me, as it seems to cost the employee more than the benefit the employer receives from that clause. Are you surprised employers can ex

by acchow 5y ago

> It seems a bit silly to me, as it seems to cost the employee more than the benefit the employer receives from that clause. Are you surprised employers can exploit unskilled laborers? It's not silly. It's asymmetrical power resulting in exploitation of people who don't have many options in jobs they can find.

eru 5y ago
I'd expect employers to have less leverage over unskilled labour, actually. For the unskilled labourer, it doesn't matter much whether they work for Burger King or McDonald's. In contrast, many software people do care whether they work for Facebook or Google. So the preferred employer has some (minor) monopsony power. Of course, the overall comp for the software guy is better. I am not sure what you mean by 'exploitation'.
- franga2000 5y ago
  > For the unskilled labourer, it doesn't matter much whether they work for Burger King or McDonald's. It also doesn't matter for those companies which cashier out of the 100s of applicants they hire. Your only power as an employee is the power to quit and if you can't guarantee that you'll get a new job quickly enough, you're powerless.
  - eru 5y ago
    Your other power is to not start in the first place. Employers with better reputation have an easier job both hiring and retaining. Treating people unnecessarily badly leads to a worse reputation.
- acchow 5y ago
  You’re assuming a extremely tight labor market, which may be true since about a year ago, but definitely has not been true for at least a decade before that. Before the current tight labor market, if someone who was living paycheck to paycheck found themself unemployed, they took whatever job they could get. Maybe they apply for 10 jobs and only hear back from 1 for an interview. They have hungry children to feed and don’t have any money for groceries. The employer understands that most applicants are desperate for any job so can tack on any terms they want - such as a non-compete.

by acchow 5y ago

eru 5y ago

I'd expect employers to have less leverage over unskilled labour, actually. For the unskilled labourer, it doesn't matter much whether they work for Burger King or McDonald's. In contrast, many software people do care whether they work for Facebook or Google. So the preferred employer has some (minor) monopsony power. Of course, the overall comp for the software guy is better. I am not sure what you mean by 'exploitation'.

franga2000 5y ago
> For the unskilled labourer, it doesn't matter much whether they work for Burger King or McDonald's. It also doesn't matter for those companies which cashier out of the 100s of applicants they hire. Your only power as an employee is the power to quit and if you can't guarantee that you'll get a new job quickly enough, you're powerless.
- eru 5y ago
  Your other power is to not start in the first place. Employers with better reputation have an easier job both hiring and retaining. Treating people unnecessarily badly leads to a worse reputation.
acchow 5y ago
You’re assuming a extremely tight labor market, which may be true since about a year ago, but definitely has not been true for at least a decade before that. Before the current tight labor market, if someone who was living paycheck to paycheck found themself unemployed, they took whatever job they could get. Maybe they apply for 10 jobs and only hear back from 1 for an interview. They have hungry children to feed and don’t have any money for groceries. The employer understands that most applicants are desperate for any job so can tack on any terms they want - such as a non-compete.