Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ...
by RIMR on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @01:30PM
(#12798508)
>Non-competes allow employees to get training they otherwise would not get.
Yeah, because employers refuse to train employees unless they sign a non-compete. It's not that they are unable to provide training, it is that they are unwilling. If Non-competes are banned, then they can start providing better training to more workers because there's no more needless red tape...
>A non-compete allows a company to make an investment in you (in the form of training) with some assurance that you will not immediately turn around post-training and go work for a direct competitor.
Then why to most non-competes extend 2 years after you leave a company, and why do they get applied to workers who have been with a company for years? You, like many others in this thread, seem to be confusing "experience", a thing the employee owns, with "training" and "know-how", things the employer owns.
Yeah, because employers refuse to train employees unless they sign a non-compete. It's not that they are unable to provide training, it is that they are unwilling. If Non-competes are banned, then they can start providing better training to more workers because there's no more needless red tape...
>A non-compete allows a company to make an investment in you (in the form of training) with some assurance that you will not immediately turn around post-training and go work for a direct competitor.
Then why to most non-competes extend 2 years after you leave a company, and why do they get applied to workers who have been with a company for years? You, like many others in this thread, seem to be confusing "experience", a thing the employee owns, with "training" and "know-how", things the employer owns.