this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
88 points (96.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7216 readers
322 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So the idea behind the ruling is that a lack of non-competes would cause irreparable harm to the companies themselves...
As opposed to the current system that causes harm to the workers, causing them to be unable work in their field of expertise for an arbitrary amount of time, in which they're expected to just find work in a different industry they're not trained in to feed their families.
That's the point. Fuck the workers. Protect corps at all cost.
Well I mean yeah, the workers don't pay these judges.
Well in theory it would, wouldn’t it? Isn’t that the point of the non compete? I have you sign it because if you utilize the skill set I gave you in the specific geographic area then my business will be harmed by you poaching clientele that would have otherwise come to me.
It’s another way of saying “fuck new small businesses, established businesses should be allowed to continue to consolidate power at the expense of everyone who comes after them” though. Aka fuck you, got mine.
It undermines capitalism. I’m not a capitalist but I thought the whole point of capitalism was to let the services and products duke it out on merit and let the best one win by letting the market decide. This is just another way we subvert capitalist ideals. we let the players who already have capital cheat to entrench their positions further and give themselves even more of an unfair advantage over anyone entering against them.
If I’m “New shop” going up against “5th generation store worth 8 million dollars with 10 locations” the odds are already hugely stacked against me, but now if I work for them and sign a noncompete I basically am barred from playing before I even try. Let alone that metaphor barely even works anymore because 99% of the time “5th generation store” is actually “global conglomerate worth 5 trillion dollars that has an army of lawyers who will either acquire you or sue you into oblivion the millisecond you become a threat”
I'm afraid you've been bamboozled. Employers don't give employees skills, employees bury themselves under mountains of debt to obtain the skills that might land them a job. When they acquire said job they do their best to become a skilled worker in that particular role, often in spite of management's best efforts to make that difficult. This often translates into non-transferable experience that applies to a particular company or industry.
I'm not saying you're on the employer's side here, but I am saying I think you're under a mistaken impression that will lead you to defend the wrong side.
I don’t think you read past the second sentence of my comment in your rush to tell me I’m wrong. The rest of my comment underlines why the theory is useless. The opening is just defining why they might define a loss of noncompetes as causing irreparable harm.
I also don’t think it’s an effective strategy to solely paint the picture of the oppressed worker with hyperbolic statements and zero nuance. The worker is the oppressed person in this case and needs the advocacy for sure but you don’t win by being disingenuous
But the rest of your comment assumes that the employer is correct in stating that the skills of the employee come from the benevolence of the employer, or at the very least you don't argue against it; you just state that non-competes are unjust in various ways. I'm not rushing to tell you you're wrong, I think you're right, that's why I said I don't think you're on the employer's side. I'm just pointing out an implicit assumption in the steelmanned argument you're making doesn't have merit.
No the rest of the comments commentary on noncompetes applies regardless of whether or not their is validity to a noncompete. Maybe that was unclear?