This is a completely inane argument. If a company researches, creates, and produces an ip, then gooogle comes along, drops a couple million to poach 3 employees with knowledge and experience on the IP, you just lost everything, simply because morons like you don’t understand business is more than input/output and are applauding destroying non competes that only last until the product they were designing is launched. If an employee is not cattle, then a business isn’t a grazing field.
This is really the best argument for non competes tbh. That being said, it only covers some of them. My company (one of the largest in its sector in the world) had us all sign non competes last year and they were very much the "try to prevent people from leaving" kind as opposed to the "try to prevent people from being poached" kind.
I can appreciate the notion that they can prevent small startups from being able to be destroyed by a giant competitor at any time, but most non competes are not used in that manner. Perhaps some sort of an exception could be carved out for small businesses (wishful thinking I know).
Non competes are far, far from perfect and have inherent flaws when used by large companies as you said. Doing away with it entirely however will lead to mass employment poaching. It’s the inverse of killing small companies by selling at a loss until you have price control, you simply outspend them until you can clone their IP or carrion feed from the business going under.
This is a completely inane argument. If a company researches, creates, and produces an ip, then gooogle comes along, drops a couple million to poach 3 employees with knowledge and experience on the IP, you just lost everything, simply because morons like you don’t understand business is more than input/output and are applauding destroying non competes that only last until the product they were designing is launched. If an employee is not cattle, then a business isn’t a grazing field.
This is really the best argument for non competes tbh. That being said, it only covers some of them. My company (one of the largest in its sector in the world) had us all sign non competes last year and they were very much the "try to prevent people from leaving" kind as opposed to the "try to prevent people from being poached" kind.
I can appreciate the notion that they can prevent small startups from being able to be destroyed by a giant competitor at any time, but most non competes are not used in that manner. Perhaps some sort of an exception could be carved out for small businesses (wishful thinking I know).
Non competes are far, far from perfect and have inherent flaws when used by large companies as you said. Doing away with it entirely however will lead to mass employment poaching. It’s the inverse of killing small companies by selling at a loss until you have price control, you simply outspend them until you can clone their IP or carrion feed from the business going under.