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”.
Now they also won't have the legal ability to simply open a new sandwich shop right next to Subway.
I.e. you're imagining that non-competes are there to protect proprietary know-how.
That's mostly true for some companies, but for others (e.g. Subway) it's a wedge guarding them against the collective action of their employees.
Legally speaking, that is often the case. Many states require a noncompete to have a “legitimate business reason”, and proprietary knowledge is the most common legitimate reason used.
I suspect judges in most states would invalidate a noncompete for a sandwich shop worker.
The legal purpose of these clauses is to keep high paid workers from stealing customer lists or business secrets. The legal system does tend to frown on them being used for rank and file.
Many employers just use them as an empty threat to manipulate people, because they know few people are going to hire a lawyer over it.
I mean, even from a practical perspective, noncompetes are pretty weak unless the employee is the kind of person who would make the news when they join a new company. You can always leave a company and tell them nothing about where you’re going. A subway franchise ain’t gonna hire some PI to figure out where a former front-line employee got a new job.
Unless you have the monetary means to bring the issue to court (and see it through to the end), any clause like this will effectively be a law.
For a total BS claim, it usually doesn’t take more than calling their bluff. Or just ignoring it.
Employers usually just bet on people just following the language and not challenging it because they think it’s valid and they think they’ll have to go to court.
In reality, a business doesn’t want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on something their own lawyer says they’re going to lose.
Nobody is taking $12/hr unskilled employees to court over noncompetes. Lighting cash on fire is a more efficient and fun way to accomplish the same.
This is much more often going to be true because the dispute was never made in the first place, because of the risk it would entail to a low wage worker. They cannot afford—for reasons of time, money, health, education—to even threaten to take an employer to court.
Your argument sounds logical, but is unfortunately unaware of how real world pressures distort systems for recourse.
However, the reality here is not likely that a sandwich shop employee would have to “threaten to take an employer to court”.
The most likely scenario is that the hiring manager doesn’t even realize that boilerplate is in their employment agreement. The second most likely is that the employer grumbles about the employee leaving and that’s as far as it goes.