4 ms·

> non-competes should be banned, yes. There isn't really any problem with them if they are properly compensated. Which isn't to say they are a great idea, but

• cameldrv 4y ago
  Yes. It's odd how in the finance world, there are often non-competes, but they call this "gardening leave." The employer has to pay the employee that's leaving their regular salary for the time that they're encumbered. For some reason in the software world, it's fairly customary for these to be signed with essentially no compensation.
  • lovich 4y ago
    It’s required in Massachusetts for all contracts since the law passed in 2018, although I’m sure a number of my previous out of state employers would be surprised if they try to enforce their non compete, especially the ones that weren’t chronologically or geographically bound. In practice it means companies only enforce their non compete on people who they really don’t want working for competitors, but they get to make that decision at the point of the employee quitting, rather than having to make the decision up front. It’s minorly worse than just blanket banning non competes but not enough that I think it’s worth the Massachusetts legislature to spend time on it, especially if the feds end up doing a blanket ban
• wahern 4y ago
  There are market externalities to two parties agreeing not to compete. Unlikely to be significant in larger markets with many independent service providers, but definitely of potential concern in smaller markets--e.g. rural dentists. The externalities could swing positive or negative--non-competes may be required to maximize the number of rural dentists--but still something to keep in mind either way.