Are non-compete clauses anti-capitalist?

[SMOGZINN]

You realize the employee is at all times making at least or better than market wage? The employee isn't unhappy about not getting the raises and bonuses, because there isn't another job he could find that would pay him more.

If that is the case, then he has found the proper place and will not leave. The other company must have been paying him under market wage. If they payed him market wage he would not have left them.

Training is not compensation. The only way it is valuable to the employee is if he can trade it for better compensation. If the company uses an artificial method like a non-compete clause to prevent that then the company is getting a unfair advantage in the wage market.

 

[Bitek]

If it benefits the business, it's A-OK.

For example; want big government out of business? If the government does something to hinder the business' growth - Yes. If the business needs a bail out/welfare/subsidy - No.

It is no different than conservatards who lose their shit over abortion, yet are perfectly OK with taking the life of someone knocking on their door at 2am, looking for help, with a shotgun blast to the face. Yes, life is sacred,.. when I say so, just like how capitalism is absolute,.. when I say so.

These types of statements are not welcome in my thread. You are welcome to participate in a constructive way, but find another thread if you just want to throw shit-bombs.

This is my only warning.

 

[Bitek]

Training is an actual cost to the company and competitors without that cost will always be able to offer higher wages to draw away trained employees.

If a company pays $10,000 to train you and then offers you a market wage, a competitor can pay you $1-$2 per hour above market at a cost of only $3,000 - $5,000. Then they just give fewer raises and/or smaller bonuses until the salary returns to market price.

What is training really? There are some one time events where employees gain some targeted skill, but in addition there is the normal routine of performing your job and gaining experience. Smart companies structure incentives to encourage growth in learning and successful risk taking.

These are far more important IMO, and the net result is a more skilled, accomplished and more valuable employee. The company can fairly compensate for this or not.

Will they sometimes lose employees? Yes.
But can they also pick up skilled employees from competitors. This can be crucial for building out talents they currently lack and cannot home grow quickly.

Job movement is also important for fostering growth in skills. It's been my experience that people plateau after some time in their jobs. It's a net benefit to the whole industry to keep up robust talent growth. NCs inhibit this growth to both employees and employers detriment overall, so this defensive move it's ultimately self defeating

 

[Brainonska511]

This came up today again: Jimmy John's makes its minimum wage sandwich makers sign a noncompete that's overly broad. There is no evidence it has ever been enforced, but it's still pretty ridiculous.

http://nyti.ms/1sMXCfz

 

[Vic]

This came up today again: Jimmy John's makes its minimum wage sandwich makers sign a noncompete that's overly broad. There is no evidence it has ever been enforced, but it's still pretty ridiculous.

http://nyti.ms/1sMXCfz

Jimmy John's non compete is almost certainly unenforceable for its low wage employees.

 

[Brainonska511]

Jimmy John's non compete is almost certainly unenforceable for its low wage employees.

It makes you wonder why they bother with it then. And though it may be unenforceable, it could still be used to give workers that leave a hard time.

 

[PokerGuy]

Jimmy John's non compete is almost certainly unenforceable for its low wage employees.

It might be in a court, but how many min wage workers are going to have the will and means to spend a bunch of money fighting something like that in court? As such it is probably very effective, even if it doesn't hold up in court.

Such clauses should not be allowed to exist, with the exception of specific circumstances or industries where the employer can demonstrate a specific rationale for them.

 

[JimKiler]

It might be in a court, but how many min wage workers are going to have the will and means to spend a bunch of money fighting something like that in court? As such it is probably very effective, even if it doesn't hold up in court.

Such clauses should not be allowed to exist, with the exception of specific circumstances or industries where the employer can demonstrate a specific rationale for them.

The IRS should tax them, that would be effective at reducing them and making companies only use them when they really want to protect themselves instead of this nonsense like Jimmy Johns. Upsetting since i love their sandwiches. Now I have to boycott them.

 

[PokerGuy]

The IRS should tax them, that would be effective at reducing them and making companies only use them when they really want to protect themselves instead of this nonsense like Jimmy Johns.

An interesting idea, taxing them as an asset generating value, so there's a (significant) cost associated with the creation of such clauses. I hadn't thought about it from that angle.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It might be in a court, but how many min wage workers are going to have the will and means to spend a bunch of money fighting something like that in court? As such it is probably very effective, even if it doesn't hold up in court.

This is how corporate America works, using the law as a club to beat those that can't defend against it. It is of course very effective when they want it to be, because most of the people they use it against are young, stupid, or both, and none of them can afford to defend themselves in a court. Most capitulate because even if it occurs to them to fight it they have no idea how to go about doing so, and those few that are smart enough to go to a lawyer are then cowed by the fact that even the cheapest lawyer's hourly rate is many times more than they can afford. Unless they get really lucky and someone explains to them how to go about getting someone to take their case pro bono they are at that point lost.
Then even if all this happens, the most the minimum wage worker is likely to win is a cancellation of the contact and wages lost which will probably not even cover their cost in lost time and materials to get the ruling.

Such clauses should not be allowed to exist, with the exception of specific circumstances or industries where the employer can demonstrate a specific rationale for them.

I don't know how you would go about keeping them from existing, you can make them non-binding, and they probably already are, and that would hardly keep a corporation from trying.

The IRS should tax them, that would be effective at reducing them and making companies only use them when they really want to protect themselves instead of this nonsense like Jimmy Johns. Upsetting since i love their sandwiches. Now I have to boycott them.

I don't think you need to tax them, what you need is to make such heavy handed legal shenanigans so expensive for corporations when they lose in court that they don't think it is worth using legally unenforceable contracts as intimidation techniques.

 

[smackababy]

Jimmy John's non compete is almost certainly unenforceable for its low wage employees.

From what I've read, most non competes are unenforceable. There has to be some kid of shady crap you're doing for the lawsuit to actually work.