Non-competes ask employees to give up something extremely significant: freedom to work there they choose. Which I have no problem with if they get something significant in exchange.
Let's an employer wants some insurance that I won't go work elsewhere because there is going to be a long training period or what not. I expect significant compensation for that, ideally in the form of a large signing bonus, maybe 50k per year of non compete.
Don't want to pay 50k in cash up front per year of non compete? Take out the non compete. Simple negotiation.
I guess the problem in practice is that employees just sign their employment contract no matter what it says, which is unfortunate.
> I guess the problem in practice is that employees just sign their employment contract no matter what it says, which is unfortunate.
In other words, the problem is that they are coercive. Employees usually sign because the company has more legal power and can be intimidating or because they could be homeless.
If companies had that much leverage we would all work at minimum wage. I've seen non-competes in contracts with 150k+ compensation. Getting 150k to do something is not coercion, it's an exchange. As for people becoming homeless, I think welfare should be the duty of the government, not individual corporations.
I agree that contracts can be intimidating, but they shouldn't be. Non competes, like most things, can be spelled out in totally ordinary English that anyone can comprehend. Rather than having to create 1 law against every possible employee-adverse thing an employer might put in a contract, I would much prefer a law that mandates employee contracts be easily understood by an average employee.
> If companies had that much leverage we would all work at minimum wage
Yes, we would! And they try really hard to do that.
> I've seen non-competes in contracts with 150k+ compensation. Getting 150k to do something is not coercion, it's an exchange.
When you're generating value in excess of double that amount? It's coercion, you aren't get paid your worth. We've actually seen this with the big tech companies like Intel, Google and Adobe. They kept salaries down for over 4 years so that 150k and a non-compete actually is a huge hindrance and it is coercion.
>Let's an employer wants some insurance that I won't go work elsewhere because there is going to be a long training period or what not. I expect significant compensation for that, ideally in the form of a large signing bonus, maybe 50k per year of non compete.
They already have a mechanism for that. It's called a contract - you promise to work for the company for 2 years.
Your argument could easily be twisted to support cartels.
Non-competes ask employees to give up something extremely significant: freedom to work there they choose. Which I have no problem with if they get something significant in exchange.
Let's an employer wants some insurance that I won't go work elsewhere because there is going to be a long training period or what not. I expect significant compensation for that, ideally in the form of a large signing bonus, maybe 50k per year of non compete.
Don't want to pay 50k in cash up front per year of non compete? Take out the non compete. Simple negotiation.
I guess the problem in practice is that employees just sign their employment contract no matter what it says, which is unfortunate.