What if you worked for some huge conglomerate like GE. What industry does GE not compete in? Or Microsoft? Walmart? Amazon? Also, their duration is typically 2-4 years. So you can't work in any major industry that GE competes in for 4 years and you get zero compensation for it. How is that anywhere close fair or reasonable?
Non-competes also include no hiring. That further limits my potential employment. If me and my buddy quit because we're sick, or bored of a place, we can't hire either other or recommend hiring each other for 2-4 years.
Guess what? If you have people who can't find employment and a good chunk of their opportunity is blocked because of non-competes, guess who pays for it?
Also, here's the crux of the hypocrisy. Companies are all about free market, but only when it benefits them. In a free market, I should be free to work anywhere for anyone. The only restriction would be not to divulge IP or trade secrets. I'm perfectly fine with that, but chances are, that's not what you are signing.
I was young and naive. I am not that young anymore but I still think this needs to be a nationwide law. If you want me to not work (in an industry) for a particular length of time, you ought to pay me to not work about as much as what I would have made by working. Sure, put a ceiling at 50x minimum wage (so currently $725k a year https://www.google.com/search?q=7.25*2000*50 ) or something but this is just common sense that if you want to prevent me from working, you should pay me for the duration that I am not working.
Given the court and arbitrator's lack of expertise, we see companies arguing that any software work at all is competition. Especially for emrging high-demand fields like machine learning.
Yeah, that's the issue basically. These things (and a lot of the golden handcuffs companies, especially inexperienced startups, like to slap on new employees - as if they didn't know any better) go way farther than anything remotely reasonable.
The end result being to discourage genuine trust and collaboration, rather than to foster it.
But there is also a larger question of why we allow them at all. They seem unconscionable in any industry. They're roughly akin to suggesting that if you train someone you own rights to their training.
You will get no more of my time: http://gawker.com/378444/did-you-sign-googles-noncompete-goo...
You couldn't even say, "Please" or thank me for what I've offered you thus far. Is common decency not part of the cultural consensus where you're from?
I can't really figure out why you would. They only benefit very large organizations attempting to stifle competition and drive down skilled worker wages. Smaller companies can't really afford to consistently enforce them and lots of smaller companies use open moonlighting agreements and a lack of no-compete as a selling point.
But I also don't care. I am not obligated to convince you. Nor am I obligated to pay your little shufflepuck game that ultimately ends up with research behind a paywall you will refuse to follow.
This story: your tactic. It's not new. It's old. I've seen it done before, I've seen it executed better as well. There is nothing more telling than looking at an obvious example of abuse sourced off a reputable news site and saying, "But this is an anecdote and I wanted data."
I am sure you will post protestations about how unfair this is. And it is, somewhat. You bear the burden put upon all anonymous accounts before you. But to be honest, given your complete refusal to even google something and count the results makes me think you're actively defending this practice as opposed to genuinely curious.
In the artist metaphor, I also assume that it took a non-trivial amount of time, say a year.
This is pretty strong empirical evidence that although enforceable noncompetes may be better for existing companies, they are a drag on the regional economy.
(Taking your current employer's clients is not exactly the same thing -- IANAL, but I would think that would be covered by the trade secret protections.)