zlacker

>>pg_123+(OP)
I've heard about a good compromise option existing in a country in Europe: noncompete agreements are not banned completely but are limited to last just half a year after the employee leaves the company. It can also last much longer in case the employer agrees to keep paying half the salary to the former employee.

>>qwerty+6d
In what universe is it a good compromise that fast food workers aren't allowed to work at another fast food restaurant for 6 months after they quit, without any compensation?

It incentivize companies to add it to their contract just because it makes it harder for employees to quit bad working conditions and low pays since they might not land a new job and be able to pay rent. It doesn't protect any sort of intellectual property, it's simply there to screw over the little guy.

The word "compromise" usually implies that both sides are getting something. What part of this would be a compromise?

>>Drakim+MZ
Well, it didn't even come to my mind that a fast food worker might have a noncompete agreement. I thought this only is about engineers, scientists, managers etc - people who actually have knowledge which is reasonable to prevent from leaking to a competing company too quickly. Applied to a fast-food worker any noncompete agreement sounds really wild. Do fast-food companies actually require this? Sounds crazy.

>>qwerty+Sl1
>Do fast-food companies actually require this?

It has happened although it's probably a "man bites dog" sort of thing that made it into the news.

I'm not sure it's good policy in general to discourage people from working--especially in the area they presumably have some expertise in.