3 ms·
Maybe those companies wouldn’t have existed without noncompetes, and not have provided those employees with jobs. Would you invest a large sum of money to build
by lumb63 3y ago
Maybe those companies wouldn’t have existed without noncompetes, and not have provided those employees with jobs. Would you invest a large sum of money to build a site and hire a team if you knew it could not only vanish but also be turned against you at a moment’s notice? Surely the situation where employees have noncompetes is worse than the situation where there are fewer jobs because noncompetes don’t exist?
- throwuxiytayq 3y agoWould you really want to create a company where the only reason employees stick around is that they literally aren’t lawfully allowed to work anywhere else? An alien, yet common mindset.
- fauigerzigerk 3y agoI would not. On the other hand I have no idea how to deal with a situation where a small tech company develops some highly specialised expertise in house only to have all their employees poached over night by a far bigger competitor that can pay them a salary or signing bonus that would be uneconomical for the smaller company to match. How would you discourage this kind of hostile takeover?
- kabouseng 3y agoA small company handles that by offering equity to the critical employees and having them share in the success of the company.
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoAlso, intellectual property and a stiff legal budget.
- idiotsecant 3y agoBe a better working environment?
- lumb63 3y agoProhibiting someone from competing with you is not at all the same as forcing them to work for you. Furthermore, if an employee doesn’t want to be subject to a noncompete agreement, they could just…not work there? Also, non-competes don’t prohibit working anywhere else.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y agoSurely noncompete clauses are mainly to allow companies to treat their employees poorly, knowing that they won't be able to get a job elsewhere. The alternative to having noncompetes is to value and reward your employees sufficiently.