The case for banning non-competes (slowboring.com)

Article summary

The article discusses the case for banning non-compete agreements, but its content is not available. Commenters debate the fairness and effects of non-competes on employees. Some argue that non-competes should be enforceable only if the employee is paid their salary for the duration of the agreement. Others think that non-competes can be a good deal for employees, allowing them to take time off or pursue other opportunities.

Main themes

• non-compete agreements
• employee rights
• fair compensation
• career advancement
• employment restrictions
• industry practices
• legal implications
• societal impact

What commenters say

• Non-competes should be enforceable only if the employee is paid their salary for the duration of the agreement to make them fair.
• Non-competes can be a good deal for employees, allowing them to take time off or pursue other opportunities, but this may not be the case for everyone.
• The threat of legal action from non-competes can stop employees from moving to other jobs, even if the non-compete is not enforceable.
• Non-competes can limit career advancement and earning potential, especially for those who need to increase their income.
• Some argue that non-competes are ok if they are a separate agreement from employment and come with fair compensation.
• Others believe that non-competes should be banned altogether, as they can be used to restrict employees' employment options unfairly.
• The current system of non-competes can be antisocial and bad for society, as it stops people from contributing productively.
• Non-competes may be more acceptable if they are limited to directly comparable and competing products or industries, rather than broadly restricting employment options.