On top of that, non-competes shouldn't be enforceable on employees who are laid off or fired. If a company doesn't want to retain an employee, they shouldn't have any say over what that employee does with their skills afterwards.
This seems like the barest of minimums, yes. I conceptually understand wanting to ensure an employee can't use their connections at your company to then "cut out the middleman" and deal direct for a better cut. But obviously if a company lets you go, they are no longer choosing to invest in that employee's skills.
But then if you want to avoid the non-compete you would just get fired on purpose.
Classic unintended consequence of regulation.
But I do agree that non-competes should be illegal or somehow highly disincentivized.
Regardless of the specifics of any regulation, the burden should be on the company and should err on the side of the employee’s benefit. It’s never fair to pit an individuals livelihood against a corporation.
Preventing a sales person from soliciting their former customers is entirely covered by a non-solicitation contract, and claiming that a non-compete agreement is needed is a total straw man.
That's different than what non-compete contracts are used for, so that's a different discussion entirely. A corporation that abuses non-competes can destroy an individual's life. There's no real reverse of that, and stealing trade secrets is already covered by law (see what happened to Anthony Levandowski).
It's completely unfair to pit an individual against a corporation. For the individual, a lawsuit related to a non-compete can consume their entire life for years while everyone working at the corporation has no real skin in the game. They'll go home and night and live their lives. Worst case they have to work late. It's not comparable at all.
It's better for a corporation to be wronged by an individual, than for an individual to be wronged by a corporation. So the law should err on the side of the individual.
To answer your question directly: frankly I don't see why not. Why can't the clients choose to change vendors? Is it not a free market? Are clients really going to change vendors just to still have the same sales rep?
A salesman doesn't exist as an island. He's selling products or services from a particular company, no? And if he leaves, he would then be selling products or services from a different company. Yes, maybe some clients will like the salesman enough to switch suppliers, but surely the fact that it's a different company with at least somewhat different products/services matters too, no?
Yes, happens all the time, and it’s not a big deal. There’s product and business strategies to help protect against that.
Also, it’s not as easy as it seems, and in cases where it is, it’s good for the overall economy: competition lowers prices the right way (unlike mergers and acquisitions).
I’m a dyed-red socialist so please explain something to me: why is this a net bad for society? Presumably the clients are leaving for a reason, so wouldn’t that just be the market doing what it’s supposed to (matching demand with supply)?
Why are all these lazy entitled companies not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and doing everything they can to keep customers?
