zlacker

>>pg_123+(OP)
The article doesn't address what I think is the most important aspect of noncompete agreements: compensation.

In France, and I believe in many other places as well, you can't have a noncompete without proper compensation. Compensation is relative to how it will affect the former employee career, it is usually less than a full wage, but it can be that if it makes finding a new job particularly difficult.

There have been a trend at one time of bullshit noncompete clauses that were too broad and didn't come with compensation, these are not enforceable. If they tried to sue the employee (they don't), they would be laughed off by the judge.

>>GuB-42+lv
Good idea to ban them, then. No issue remains.

>>JoeAlt+nF
I don't think completely blanket banning noncompetes is a good idea either, there are some cases where they are justified. We just need rules to make sure that they serve their intending purpose (protecting company secrets) without negatively affecting employees.

The rule of thumb should be that the majority of employees under noncompete should be happy about it (because of the advantageous compensation). It is only a problem when it is not the case.

Not you can argue about the value of secrecy vs openness to society as a whole, but that's another debate.