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
Why should I believe you? You don't offer an argument. It is entirely plausible that one could be faced with a situation of losing one's home, health insurance, ability to exist in modern life, and, oh, one's actual life due to unemployment. I know this because it happens. Non-competes, by definition, make this problem worse by reducing the number of jobs available to a person. What's your justification?

>>Paul-C+sl
Wall Street non-competes are only enforced if they pay you your base salary during the period. They can also opt to not do that and waive the non-compete, in which case you can work anywhere. I think it's ridiculous that Subway has non-competes, but with regards to the article I doubt anyone is forced to choose between working for a trading firm and starving. There also are some firms that do not do non-competes. So it's closer to voluntary than involuntary I'd say, though very few decisions are truly 100% personal choice.