zlacker

>>pg_123+(OP)
> New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy

I though capitalism (Wall Street) was about competition. /s

>>hulitu+p4
It's about voluntary contracts, too.

>>eru+J6
Agreements between parties of vastly unequal power and alternatives are not voluntary.

>>Paul-C+qe
If they aren't voluntarily, they wouldn't be enforceable in court.

What you're trying to say is there's limited alternatives. (The most obvious alternative is to not take the job)

>>cj+Wi
No. What I'm saying is "take a job with a non-compete or starve" is not a situation in which a worker can make a voluntary choice, "enforceable in court" be damned. Not to mention, such agreements are often not stated up front as part of the job description.

>>Paul-C+dj
I hear what you’re saying, but it’s hyperbole. I think there’s zero percent of you starving over your unwillingness to sign a non-compete.

Pretending like the situation is that extreme isn’t helping anyone.

>>cj+ok
In the USA fast food companies are requiring non competes for burger flippers.

>>jounke+Lv
I whole heartedly think that burger flippers should not have to sign a non-compete.

But HCE’s who deal with intellectual data (not burgers) all day long? Maybe, maybe not.

The point is it’s a choice to sign these contracts. Not every company makes you sign one. If it’s important to you, ask about it upfront in the interview process so it doesn’t turn into a “life or death” decision after you’ve accepted a verbal offer.