alt Hacker NewsNon-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.
Replies
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.
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.