this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
85 points (96.7% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7179 readers
413 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
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?