It's not the employee's fault security clearances are expensive and take forever. If employees with clearances are that valuable, then pay them more to retain them, simple as.
What you're saying is just pay the same salary as your competitor can plus all the money you invested in the employee on top that, which your competitor doesn't have to pay.
Fairness is a two-way street and it's also not fair to the employer to invest loads of money into an employee and have them cut and run with that investment.
This mindset of only fairness for the employee and never the employer has predictable consequences, favoring large companies. I hope you like working for Lockheed.
As long as workers don't completely drop out of the applicable career, this all offsets in the long run anyway. Company A might pay for an employee's clearance only to have them leave for B, but then A can do the same to company C who then does it to B and so on.
That's a nice justification, kind of like how people rob stores and it's okay because stores have insurance, but that doesn't address what's fair or right.
You can say that over enough time it'll average out, but you can't innovate with average talent; you need to invest in exceptional talent and if there's no return on that investment nobody can do it.
An innovative startup can't poach from "Company A" because it's full of mediocre talent. Company A will only invest in people who Company B won't even bother with. Without non-compete you only get this mediocrity. The first company only invests the money in people who are too staid to leave even for more money.
It's not the employee's fault security clearances are expensive and take forever. If employees with clearances are that valuable, then pay them more to retain them, simple as.
What you're saying is just pay the same salary as your competitor can plus all the money you invested in the employee on top that, which your competitor doesn't have to pay.
Fairness is a two-way street and it's also not fair to the employer to invest loads of money into an employee and have them cut and run with that investment.
This mindset of only fairness for the employee and never the employer has predictable consequences, favoring large companies. I hope you like working for Lockheed.
As long as workers don't completely drop out of the applicable career, this all offsets in the long run anyway. Company A might pay for an employee's clearance only to have them leave for B, but then A can do the same to company C who then does it to B and so on.
That's a nice justification, kind of like how people rob stores and it's okay because stores have insurance, but that doesn't address what's fair or right.
You can say that over enough time it'll average out, but you can't innovate with average talent; you need to invest in exceptional talent and if there's no return on that investment nobody can do it.
An innovative startup can't poach from "Company A" because it's full of mediocre talent. Company A will only invest in people who Company B won't even bother with. Without non-compete you only get this mediocrity. The first company only invests the money in people who are too staid to leave even for more money.
Changing jobs isn't robbing. Holy shit, LMAO. How is your startup going to poach people under non-competes?