Re:Noncompete Clauses Increasingly Pop Up in Array of Jobs
by tehwebguy on Monday June 09, 2014 @05:24PM
(#7870610)
Of course, it is all about consideration. I just can't think of an example where training would be enough consideration for a non-compete.
Employers always have to pay for experience. You either pay more for an experienced employee or pay for training.
With an experienced employee you can include actual benefits, like you mentioned, or you can pay to train someone who will take a lower salary.
Re:Noncompete Clauses Increasingly Pop Up in Array of Jobs
by tptacek on Monday June 09, 2014 @06:20PM
(#7870835)
I'm not suggesting that training should be adequate consideration for a noncompete.
Re:Noncompete Clauses Increasingly Pop Up in Array of Jobs
by _delirium on Monday June 09, 2014 @05:55PM
(#7870754)
> what's the problem?
It's uncomfortably close to indentured servitude to me to say: you can't work for anyone else until you pay off this up-front investment we made in you (working only for us until you do).
Obviously, training benefits can be abused. "Here is a 'benefit' that is not really a 'benefit' but instead a job requirement for which we have assigned a nearly arbitrary value; if you leave within 12 months, you must pay us this random number back." But as long as "training" has some value assigned by the market with a reference price not controlled by the employer, what's the problem?