I'm not against non-competes, but I think that you should be compensated for any harm they cause. If I get fired, non-compete should be invalid. If I get a job offer, my company should get a right of first refusal to match compensation.
Why should the company get the right if first refusal?
Why do you assume compensation is the only motivation? Countless studies show that bad management is the primary reason for leaving.
By your argument, if I’m being sexually harassed at work in such a way that I can’t likely win in court (never done in front of others), as long as my current company matches any offer I get, I’m not allowed to leave?
Why does the company get the benefit? If I can’t go to a new company, why can you fire me? It’s absolutely impossible to prove every infraction that could be done by the company or employee.
> I'm not against non-competes, but I think that you should be compensated for any harm they cause. If I get fired, non-compete should be invalid. If I get a job offer, my company should get a right of first refusal to match compensation.
I dunno about the right of first refusal, but the firing thing should absolutely make non-competes invalid.
If you don't want someone to work for you anymore, then that's your problem when they work for someone else.
Think about normal relationships - anyone who left their partner and then insisted that their ex cannot start a new relationship would be considered insane by everyone party to the conversation.
And yet, when it comes to something even more important, like making a living, we totally allow it, tolerate it and normalise it!
I'm not against non-competes, but I think that you should be compensated for any harm they cause. If I get fired, non-compete should be invalid. If I get a job offer, my company should get a right of first refusal to match compensation.