3 ms·

The argument is there is a (narrow) use-case for them. For example, let's say I'm Bob the baker and I own Bob's Bakery. I sell my bakery to Steve. If I were to

The argument is there is a (narrow) use-case for them. For example, let's say I'm Bob the baker and I own Bob's Bakery. I sell my bakery to Steve. If I were to then open "Bob's New Bakery" across the street I would have sold Steve a crappy barrel of goods. You can see this in a lot of small service-based business too. So you'll have a non-compete that says you can't open an X within Y miles or Z months. It's a useful construct for some cases.

JoshTriplett 3y ago
That's an argument that they make sense at the sale-of-a-company level, not an argument that they make sense for individual employees or contractors.
- randomdata 3y ago
  They make sense for individual employees because they give an individual employee a leg up over the competition. Ask anyone bemoaning a non-compete why they signed it. They didn't have to! The answer is always: "I wouldn't have gotten the job without it." Exactly. The job would have still been filled. No company is going to not hire a needed worker just because nobody will sign a non-compete. But the company would have hired an otherwise better candidate instead. In other words, the person who signed the non-compete gets to screw over other workers now just by giving up a small chance of not being able to do a certain job for some duration in the future. That's a pretty good value proposition.
  - cogman10 3y ago
    I had to sign my noncompete 2 weeks after I started working. Can you not see the huge power imbalance at play? It's not like other employers in my area aren't also requiring them. So my choice was sign it, or lose my current job, not qualify for unemployment, and I'd have to hunt for a new job but not likely one without a noncompete and likely not without moving. Don't act like "it's a choice" in our industry because the only companies not pushing them are companies in the few states that have outlawed them. We are in a company store situation "you don't have to work for that coal mine, you could go to the next town over and work for a different coal mine that has the exact same city setup"
    - randomdata 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - cogman10 3y ago
        > Your choice was to sign it or let the better worker have the job. The position wasn't going to be left unfilled. Actually, yes, it was. We still to this day struggle to hire qualified engineers. The market for engineers isn't hot where I live but that doesn't mean that all the local businesses aren't still forcing non-competes. > Yes, I recognize your attempts to gain a power imbalance over the other workers and screw them out of a job. Typical worker behaviour, save where they manage to establish a brotherhood (i.e. a union) with some agreed upon standards of engagement. > But why do you hate other workers so much that you would stoop to that level? Tell me how your arguments don't apply to company towns and company stores? Do your recognize that as being abusive towards employees or do you think "Well, it's actually all the miners fault, they didn't have to choose to work there".
        randomdata 3y ago
        > We still to this day struggle to hire qualified engineers. Yes, that's right. Qualified engineers won't sign non-competes. That is why the business ended up with you instead. But that only goes so far. When nobody will sign non-competes, then businesses have no choice but to abandon the idea, and then they can go after the qualified engineers, which leaves you on the outs. You are accepting of it because you know it is your way in to a job you otherwise wouldn't be selected for – like you said, they have no interest in employing you otherwise. They are accepting of it because it reduces the risk as an employer, even if that means getting the dregs. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement. > Tell me how your arguments don't apply to company towns I guess it might apply to company towns if you hate your neighbours just as much as you hate other workers in your current environment. Although in that case you may be doing them a favour by pushing them out of town. In this case you are clearly acting with malicious intent – selling your soul, so to speak, just to ensure that the worker more deserving and a better fit but who is unwilling to give up themself in the quest for profit is kept out of the job.

JoshTriplett 3y ago

That's an argument that they make sense at the sale-of-a-company level, not an argument that they make sense for individual employees or contractors.

randomdata 3y ago
They make sense for individual employees because they give an individual employee a leg up over the competition. Ask anyone bemoaning a non-compete why they signed it. They didn't have to! The answer is always: "I wouldn't have gotten the job without it." Exactly. The job would have still been filled. No company is going to not hire a needed worker just because nobody will sign a non-compete. But the company would have hired an otherwise better candidate instead. In other words, the person who signed the non-compete gets to screw over other workers now just by giving up a small chance of not being able to do a certain job for some duration in the future. That's a pretty good value proposition.
- cogman10 3y ago
  I had to sign my noncompete 2 weeks after I started working. Can you not see the huge power imbalance at play? It's not like other employers in my area aren't also requiring them. So my choice was sign it, or lose my current job, not qualify for unemployment, and I'd have to hunt for a new job but not likely one without a noncompete and likely not without moving. Don't act like "it's a choice" in our industry because the only companies not pushing them are companies in the few states that have outlawed them. We are in a company store situation "you don't have to work for that coal mine, you could go to the next town over and work for a different coal mine that has the exact same city setup"
  - randomdata 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - cogman10 3y ago
      > Your choice was to sign it or let the better worker have the job. The position wasn't going to be left unfilled. Actually, yes, it was. We still to this day struggle to hire qualified engineers. The market for engineers isn't hot where I live but that doesn't mean that all the local businesses aren't still forcing non-competes. > Yes, I recognize your attempts to gain a power imbalance over the other workers and screw them out of a job. Typical worker behaviour, save where they manage to establish a brotherhood (i.e. a union) with some agreed upon standards of engagement. > But why do you hate other workers so much that you would stoop to that level? Tell me how your arguments don't apply to company towns and company stores? Do your recognize that as being abusive towards employees or do you think "Well, it's actually all the miners fault, they didn't have to choose to work there".
      - randomdata 3y ago
        > We still to this day struggle to hire qualified engineers. Yes, that's right. Qualified engineers won't sign non-competes. That is why the business ended up with you instead. But that only goes so far. When nobody will sign non-competes, then businesses have no choice but to abandon the idea, and then they can go after the qualified engineers, which leaves you on the outs. You are accepting of it because you know it is your way in to a job you otherwise wouldn't be selected for – like you said, they have no interest in employing you otherwise. They are accepting of it because it reduces the risk as an employer, even if that means getting the dregs. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement. > Tell me how your arguments don't apply to company towns I guess it might apply to company towns if you hate your neighbours just as much as you hate other workers in your current environment. Although in that case you may be doing them a favour by pushing them out of town. In this case you are clearly acting with malicious intent – selling your soul, so to speak, just to ensure that the worker more deserving and a better fit but who is unwilling to give up themself in the quest for profit is kept out of the job.