• RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 years ago

    The argument I did make is the non-competes were never there to "retain talent. Imo this disproportionately helps executives make more money and that’s why it’s being passed.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      The argument I did make is the non-competes were never there to "retain talent.

      Then why were they there?

      • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        To prevent people from being paid by multiple companies at the same time, which is a thing only execs do…

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          A non-compete is, in essence, a clause that dictates whether a worker can find employment (or create a product) that directly competes with their employer—even if they aren’t working for them anymore. Typically, these will last around six months to a year after the end of employment, but they can last longer.

          Six months to a year after employment is hardly “at the same time.”