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
I’m not going to debate or justify non-competes. I’m also not advocating for them.

All I’m doing is calling you out that when you join a company, you’re voluntarily signing all of the contracts. It’s not some kind of involuntary act of slavery. A responsible adult is presented a contract and chooses to sign it. That’s the opposite of involuntary.

Your argument is it’s involuntary.

That’s what we were debating. I wasn’t debating the contents of the contract. I personally don’t see a major need for non-competes and is overkill in almost all cases.

I’m simply tired of the “I’m a victim!” mindset of blaming others for their own actions. It’s your fault if you signed a shitty employment contract. Next time read the fine print, or don’t sign it.

>>cj+Nq
Absolutely none of that is necessarily voluntary. You have missed the point entirely. A choice between "X or die" is not a choice. That is a very real scenario, which you have not even acknowledge. Instead, you're saying I should be an expert in contracts.

I am not making the situation "extreme," either. If anything, the situation is even more extreme than I am making it out to be.

>>Paul-C+Rr
The unemployment rate in the US is near record lows, so there are plenty of alternatives for most people. And: your government spent about 22.7% of GDP on social expenditures (in 2022, the latest year I have data for). See https://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htm

You have a hard time convincing anyone that the choice is "take this job or die" for most people.

>>eru+uw6
Oh, so it's okay if it's voluntary for some people but not for others? I guess slavery in the 1800s was okay because most people weren't slaves, then.