3 ms·
I think the whole point is to call the bluff. If it’s really valuable IP that they protecting with a non-compete, then it would be worth it to pay someone a ma
by vegetablepotpie 3y ago
I think the whole point is to call the bluff.
If it’s really valuable IP that they protecting with a non-compete, then it would be worth it to pay someone a mandatory vacation upon leaving.
But how often are non-compete clauses really meant to protect IP? Most of the time it’s a tool to depress wages, they know it, we know it, they know we know it. No one is being fooled here that’s all it is.
If you put a price on non-competes, they will go away.
- JohnFen 3y ago> But how often are non-compete clauses really meant to protect IP? I would venture never. Or nearly never. A noncompete is a terrible way to protect IP.
- dataflow 3y ago> If you put a price on non-competes, they will go away. Unless they calculate that competition would have a higher price, in which case, they might not go away for everyone.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- roenxi 3y agoPaying someone not to work is a complete waste of resources. This isn't an area where people should be trying to come up with clever rules-lawyer contracts - someone able & willing to work sitting around not doing something is a huge waste for society, the person and whoever needs the work done. It is probably going too far to ban the practice all-together, but no company should ever have the ability to stop someone from taking a job at a different company, today, if the pay is right. No union either for that matter, although that is a more controversial stance.