| ▲ | RayVR 14 hours ago | |||||||
Non-competes in finance almost always come with compensation during the defined period. The idea that a company can restrict at-will employee’s post-separation employment is absurd if they aren’t compensating the individual. In many US states and countries outside the US, the enforcement of non-competes is very very hard. The problem is that they create a RISK of enforcement. | ||||||||
| ▲ | J-Kuhn 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
By some logic: * If they want to tell someone personally what to do or not to do, is some form of employment. * If it is not paid, it can be considered slavery. * It is usually possible to quit jobs. | ||||||||
| ▲ | rrrrrrrrrrrryan 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
Executive level non-competes are probably the most damaging for the overall economy though. If there's a market-dominating company, and execs are allowed to leave said company, start a competitor, get some investor dollars behind them, then start poaching employees from the old company, the market can have a really viable competitor quite quickly. Without that ability, little monopolies spring up throughout the economy and use their size to crush upstarts, under-compensate their employees, overcharge their customers, and squeeze their suppliers. Banning non-competes is an absolute requirement for free-market capitalism to function properly. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | jmyeet 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
I'm a firm believer in this as well. You want to enforce a noncompete? Great. You have to pay me as much as what I was earning (plus benefits), possibly more, for as long as you want to enforce it. That amount should probably go up 50%+ per year too. | ||||||||