I agree with the core of your argument, however in this instance we have private market manipulation.
In most situations the employers have more leverage then the employee. The very best hires will not accept sub par offers. But a lot of others, including some very good ones, will.
The result being that private companies influence the labor market for their own benefit and everyone else's detriment. That includes other employers and employees.
Think of non competes for utilities, as in only one cable co. can serve your area. Does that make the private market manipulation more obvious? Private market distortion is no better then public market distortion.
Cartels, non-competes, etc, are legitimate targets for government busting from my libertarian perspective.
This move doesn't do anything to reduce the "market manipulation" you allege. If employers are negotiating from a position of strength, they'll get all manner of other concessions, starting with wages and benefits --- which is all most people care about. I don't see the principle that you're arguing from here.
Your comparisons are a little silly, too. There are good reasons (right of way, regulation) and bad (monopoly concessions, lobbying, corruption) that private utilities own entire markets. These have nothing to do with the forces behind noncompetes. No noncompete has helped establish any company's monopoly in any product or service you can name, even regionally.
Noncompetes are a trade. Companies provide employees with access to resources, client lists, and trade secrets. They want to ensure that rolodexes aren't shopped and product plans aren't bootlegged. These are reasonable goals. Employment contracts are blunt and inefficient instruments for accomplishing those goals, but that doesn't make the intent corrupt.
Noncompetes are a trade. Companies provide employees with access to resources, client lists, and trade secrets. They want to ensure that rolodexes aren't shopped and product plans aren't bootlegged.
Isn't that an NDA?
I see non-competes as nothing but attempts to reduce competition. Except that is exactly how markets are NOT supposed to work. You're supposed to out-compete, not simply reduce competition.
No. A sales account manager at AcmeTron can dump the entire CRM database, walk it over to WidgetCorp, and run all those same accounts for them without ever once violating an NDA.
Frankly, and I hope respectfully, if you can't see the distinctions here, I'm not sure why you'd expect anyone to take your opinions about noncompetes seriously. You might also consider wording your ideas better: "noncompetes are nothing but attempts to reduce competition", for instance, might not be your best rhetorical play.
I'm pretty ambivalent about noncompetes. They've hurt me more than they've helped me, both as employee and (in concert with) employers. But I don't like shoddy arguments.
I'm not a salesman so I wouldn't know but it seems to me A sales account manager at AcmeTron can dump the entire CRM database, walk it over to WidgetCorp, and run all those same accounts for them without ever once violating an NDA. is the very definition of why you need NDAs.
But again maybe I'm looking at this from an engineer's perspective and it's different for sales.
In either case, I don't think we'll change each others minds here on the Internet.
In a consulting agreement, you may find "Non-use" terms along with "Non-disclosure" terms in the IP language; technically, this would prevent a consultant from stealing the sales rolodex and then using it to contact customers.
Otherwise, you violate an NDA by disclosing to someone not bound under the same NDA actual confidential information. Nothing prevents you from using confidential information to compete "unfairly" with your employer.
You can add whatever terms you'd like to whatever you call a "confidentiality" or IP agreement, but now you're on a slippery slope that leads to de facto noncompetes.
In most situations the employers have more leverage then the employee. The very best hires will not accept sub par offers. But a lot of others, including some very good ones, will.
The result being that private companies influence the labor market for their own benefit and everyone else's detriment. That includes other employers and employees.
Think of non competes for utilities, as in only one cable co. can serve your area. Does that make the private market manipulation more obvious? Private market distortion is no better then public market distortion.
Cartels, non-competes, etc, are legitimate targets for government busting from my libertarian perspective.