I just can't understand how anyone can, with a straight face, argue that non-compete clauses should be allowed in a free market.
The free market works best when competition isn't stifled, and the name of the clause is literally a "non-compete".
The free market works best when competition isn't stifled, and the name of the clause is literally a "non-compete".
The list of customers of a company is something you should not be taking with you when you go work for a competitor. The next feature you will implement is non-public information.
A non compete is only about someone who you want to continue working for you. If the competitor offers a significantly better wage you didn't want to keep them in the first place (even if you offer match too bad - if you were serious you would have been paying them that much already), though of course the competitor needs to be serious (that is not hiring someone away and then letting them go). If you lay someone off then you don't want that person to work for you and the non-compete is obviously invalid.
[1] https://www.hchlawyers.com/business-law/contract-law/non-com...
[2] https://katzmelinger.com/understanding-non-compete-agreement...
It is too late or I'd edit my original post to make that clearer.
Businesses already have recourse for information like this. If they take reasonable steps to protect the customer list then they can sue the ex-employee for stealing trade secrets.
There also likely needs to be some additional compensation for lost time in the market when skills are atrophying or new experience isn't being gained.
Non-competes have a place, but there needs to be tons of rules around their use, like only being available for specialized and other high paid roles. Something like 3x-4x median salary to be a position eligible for a company to even propose a non-compete.
Companies don't have a face, so they don't need to keep it straight. They will simply amorally argue for anything that increases their money or power, and argue against anything that decreases it. They don't even need to be consistent, and are unburdened from human feelings like shame and hypocrisy. They can effortlessly argue for some principle XYZ when it helps them, and then turn around and argue against XYZ in cases where it hurts them.
In reality, in the vast majority of cases, the employers have much more leverage, and therefore non-competes aren't used as a negotiating tool for both parties, they're used by employers to stifle competition for labor and therefore stifle salaries.