Hacker News Reader

That's evasive. We have good reason to discount the idea that Jimmy Johns is seriously motivated by concerns about competing with sandwich chains started by their employees, and among them is the fact that they don't satisfy the requirements for enforcing those noncompetes, which their numerous attorneys have doubtlessly told them.

View on HN

They have then doubtlessly been told that they are unenforceable again Joe Employee who wants to work at Subway, but you seem to think that they still do it to trick people from leaving to work at subway. Why don't you think it's useful to discourage people potential competitors from infiltrating their company? I'd bet you it's way more likely to be enforceable in the latter case, against someone looking to copy your operations, if it's enforceable at all.

Because the bogus non-compete will fool Joe Employee but not Joe Next-Captain-of-Industry.

You should familiarize yourself with the story of Homejoy. The founders did pretty much exactly what we are describing as a potential threat here in order to gain experience in the cleaning world.

The argument that asking employees to sign a non-compete is somehow unethical, yet getting a low-wage job to learn how to run a competing business is not unethical is moot and completely subjective.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com