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
It is happening, Walmart was doing it to their cashiers, and why shouldn't they? It's a huge boon to companies to make it difficult and expensive for people to quit their jobs in favor of something better, it means they can push wages down further, give worse working conditions, without needing to worry about people quitting.

Back when it was allowed, some companies would pay in fake company money called "scrip" that you could only use in their company store to buy food. They also owned the houses so you could only rent if you were an employee. Wanna quit your job? Good luck also losing your house and not having actual money to go anywhere else.

You gotta understand that if you have something that can be abused for profits, then it will be abused for profit. Even if a company is has a heart of gold and decides not to do this, they will be out-competed by companies who are willing to do evil things and thus be more profitable. Abuse will happen by logical necessity.