zlacker

>>pg_123+(OP)
Sometimes I feel like corporations do things just because their lawyers are cargo culting and adding clauses because everyone else does rather than some logical reason.

My sister worked at Subway and had to sign a noncompete that she wouldn’t work at another sandwich shop for three years. Are they really afraid she’s going to steal their secrets of placing meat on bread?

The more cynical will certainly assume malice, that the company did this to keep you from leaving. It particularly at the time it was not hard at all to find new fast food workers, and I am a firm believer in Hanlon’s Razor and never assume malice when incompetence will do. I genuinely think the explanation could just be Subway’s lawyers were like “everyone else is doing noncompetes”.

>>donatj+nT
Is there a version of Hanlons Razor but instead of incompetence, it’s money?

I’m a firm believer in that. The clause was probably put in there so the lawyers could bill more hours.

I can easily imagine a legal firm noticing a drop in billable hours so they start reaching out to existing clients, throwing in a bit of fear, saying everyone is putting non-competes in their agreements you should too. Boom, all clients get billed extra that month, I wouldn’t call this incompetence, but greed

>>malux8+WT
> Is there a version of Hanlons Razor but instead of incompetence, it’s money?

For businesses, which aim to make money, isnt that simply competence? Or greed when taken to an extreme.

Basically “companies will act in their best interest.”

>>noneth+DU
No, that's too reductive - the behaviour is not solely explained by a unidimensional scalar like competence because there are actions that a greedy unethical competent company would take that another non-greedy ethical company would not take - so theres more dimensions than just competence.

>>malux8+YV
also, in case of the billable hours, the lawyers might do it due to monetary incentives, but subway might be malicious (or have other reasons to do it)