Then maybe employers should have only used them for the handful of employees where they would actually be beneficial instead of making them a standard term of employment for everyone.
Instead they abused the concept so much they made it so the government said they don't get to use it anymore. Hard to feel much pity about that.
As if all employers were the same. But you shouldn't feel pity for them, you should feel regret for the oncoming mediocrity that always follows trying to protect people from being able to make poor choices.
If you're American you've benefitted from the federal system where that kind work was done in other more free market states. You may not notice the mediocrity since you're used to it and don't know the difference, but the whole country will be like that.
Without that 10 you're losing innovation. How much? My personal experience with companies that probably wouldn't have existed or been successful without non-compete (or equivalent) says quite a lot.
Just to protect people from making bad decisions?
I'll leave you with the FTC announcement. According to this there's nothing good about non-compete clauses at all. No issue like this is entirely black and white and when somebody tells you it is they're lying and have some agenda; for instance they say banning non-compete "would close racial and gender wage gaps".
The answer to your questions here is that sometimes non-compete is a good thing and sometimes it's abusive.
That's why the answer isn't a blanket ban on them.
Then maybe employers should have only used them for the handful of employees where they would actually be beneficial instead of making them a standard term of employment for everyone.
Instead they abused the concept so much they made it so the government said they don't get to use it anymore. Hard to feel much pity about that.
As if all employers were the same. But you shouldn't feel pity for them, you should feel regret for the oncoming mediocrity that always follows trying to protect people from being able to make poor choices.
I've spent most of my career working for companies in jurisdictions where non-competes are legally unenforceable, so I doubt much will change for me.
If you're American you've benefitted from the federal system where that kind work was done in other more free market states. You may not notice the mediocrity since you're used to it and don't know the difference, but the whole country will be like that.
I think the difference is if the abusive to non abusive was 50:50 then it would be kinda fine, but it’s more like 90:10.
You're talking cost/benefit.
Without that 10 you're losing innovation. How much? My personal experience with companies that probably wouldn't have existed or been successful without non-compete (or equivalent) says quite a lot.
Just to protect people from making bad decisions?
I'll leave you with the FTC announcement. According to this there's nothing good about non-compete clauses at all. No issue like this is entirely black and white and when somebody tells you it is they're lying and have some agenda; for instance they say banning non-compete "would close racial and gender wage gaps".