4 ms·
Some of the jobs I've had or looked at made employment contingent on a non-compete. In those cases, saying something like this would mean finding another job.
by gtaylor 13y ago
Some of the jobs I've had or looked at made employment contingent on a non-compete. In those cases, saying something like this would mean finding another job.
Depending on your skills, your area of expertise, and your reputation, this may or may not be a big deal to you personally, but it's not an option for everyone. My last employer (when I was straight out of college) would have just shown me the door if I said something like this.
- smackfu 13y agoIf wonder if companies with mandatory non-competes have lower salaries. They should.
- ghaff 13y agoEconomic theory would suggest so. I suspect that, adjusting for everything else, it's a pretty small effect. Would be an interesting study though. I wonder if there's one there. [EDIT: Duh. I misread the original post. Of course, the salary should be higher not lower to compensate for such a restriction--though I still suspect it would be small.]
- nickff 13y agoWhat economic theory would suggest this? This non-compete appears to be an option, and would be priced as such.[1] I would guess that purchasing any additional assurance from an employee would cost the employer(s) more, perhaps in the form of salary, severance, or a signing bonus. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valuation_of_options http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valuation_of_options
- ghaff 13y agoYou're, of course, correct for the reason that you state.
- khuey 13y agoYou would expect them to have higher salaries, to compensate employees for the risk of being prohibited from working for N months after their employment terminates.
- smackfu 13y agoHigher initial salaries perhaps, but lower annual increases, since employees don't have as many jobs to switch to so there is less incentive for raises.
- nickff 13y agoIt appears that you are making the unstated assumptions that these employees have experience in exclusively non-transferable skills and that they had no knowledge of future changes in salary at the time they accepted the agreement. I find both of these claims to be dubious at best; if you have supporting evidence, please enlighten me.
- JS1984 13y agoIn a good market, only more desperate candidates will go with non-compete positions. So lower salary argument makes sense
- stephencanon 13y agoNo; in a good market the employer who wants a non-compete would need to pay me up front for the time period that I wouldn’t be able to work after leaving her firm, plus a premium for the expected difference between my salary at that point and my salary at hiring, which would make the wage for positions with a non-compete significantly higher than those without.
- dredmorbius 13y agoYou're making the error of deducing market conditions from price (or price from market conditions). Market price is determined (in a well-functioning market) by the intersection of supply and demand. So the salary could go other way: higher, if a non-compete makes it harder for the employer to find employees willing to sign the clause, lower, if result is fewer alternatives and/or more desperate employees interested in the position. I'd actually argue the second: that noncompetes raise employees' switching costs, and reduce their alternatives, so that a state in which noncompetes are valid and widely applied would tend to have depressed labor rates.
- jt2190 13y ago> In those cases, saying something like this would mean > finding another job. Did you actually try it?