Common Assignment final

Non-compete agreements are clauses in contracts that prevent one party from entering a similar profession or trade in competition with another party. They are commonly used by tech and business industries to protect intellectual property and trade secrets. However, they have become controversial as they can trap workers in low-income industries and prevent them from pursuing other opportunities. Executives argue that non-competes are necessary to protect their company's assets and prevent employees from using their knowledge for personal gain. The debate continues, but some propose banning non-compete agreements nationwide and replacing them with non-disclosure agreements to protect company secrets without restricting employees' career options. Non-compete agreements. Defining contract law as a non-compete clause, it is a clause under which one party agrees not to enter or start a similar profession or trade in competition against another party. Interestingly enough, non-compete agreements have been around since the Middle Ages and have grown ever more popular. More than 30 million U.S. workers are forced to sign non-competes as conditions of their hiring. Non-compete agreements are most used by tech and businesses who wish to protect their secrets to success. Non-compete agreements protect companies' intellectual property, trade secrets, procedures they use to make their goods and services, maintain their competitive advantage, etc. There are many valuable uses of non-competes. These non-competes have a few basic rules to them though. Based on location, duration, and industry, you will not be able to find a job in a similar market for the duration of your non-compete agreement. Non-competes have been around for longer than anyone alive, but what about them makes them so controversial? It starts all the way back when the federal government started looking into them in 2014. They found out that a sandwich shop chain named Jimmy John's was forcing its employees to sign non-competes. Thus began the revelation of the true abuse of these agreements. Upon further investigation, the federal government learned of many companies and people making their employees sign these agreements, leading on to many bills attempting to end non-competes completely, yet nothing has stuck. But what divides the workforce in a country of non-competes? One viewpoint of non-competes agreements is that it traps workers into a certain job with no way out, especially people in low-income industries. This viewpoint sees non-competes as trapping and blocking any economic growth or self-growth they could possibly have. Over 30% of all non-compete agreements are for workers who make below $13 an hour. Look at the Jimmy John's situation. These low-wage industries have trapped their workers at this job with absolutely no way out. This has become a serious issue in our country. I agree with this viewpoint in a way, that the original true use of non-competes has been taken advantage of and abused completely. The purpose of non-competes are to try and protect company secrets and people threatening to leave and wager their jobs. But they have gone way past that now. To their point, they are being blocked from their ability to become entrepreneurs for themselves or create anything they want to do for themselves. The non-competes they are forced to sign have in some way, either from geographical or industry clauses, have blocked them from doing anything to benefit themselves. While not illegal, it raises major ethical concerns. Have companies become so money hungry that they have become okay with destroying people's livelihood? The managers of these companies have such a skewed view of the world that they have completely ignored what they have done to their employees. On the other hand though, these employees need to consider the other side of the problem too, and why the executives need to do this. These executives are not actively seeking people out to try to ruin their life. They are just trying to provide a life for themselves and for their families, same as them. The employees fail to see the struggles these executives also face. Without the non-competes, these employees have the ability to keep bouncing around from job to job and negotiate a better salary than the one they currently have, which is something I have even done myself. While the people who view this as fair and free market tactics see this as clearly fair and okay, a lot of people like myself can attest to the fact that it seems very unethical and quite immoral. Companies will have to be constantly raising prices and benefits to compete with each other, which can and does cause a lot of economic issues and inflation. Another reason that these employees need to look at is the trading aspect of their job. These employees spend a lot of time and money training their employees to be able to do their job efficiently and effectively. What non-competes do is protect these employers from employees trying to get a raise after. This protects their investment and their trading. Both sides of this viewpoint bring valuable and insightful points to the topic. Unfortunately, they are both right at the same time, making it hard for any change to actually occur. Another stakeholder in the conversation of non-compete agreements are executives at top level businesses, including tech companies, law firms, and financial service firms. To their view, non-competes have substantial benefits and positive views. It guarantees them that their current employees and recently fired or quit employees are not exposing their trade secrets or company assets. It also prevents an employee from using their business in the company with the knowledge that they have from trying to negotiate a higher salary at another company in exchange for those secrets. While completely unethical, this is a tag that people would probably use as it is smart and helps them move up financially. Their view of non-competes have a lot of good and positive thinking to them. Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. You have just had a technological breakthrough that can make your company millions of dollars, but the only way to produce their product is through the work of your company, which exposes the company to leaks and information being given out. Without the non-compete, any employee with any lack of morals will be consented to information for a hefty price in a new job somewhere else. As such, non-compete agreements will prevent this from happening, and if it happens anyway, they can sue the person who leaked the information for any of the estimated profits that they would have made off that technological breakthrough. While it is expected that a businessman should deal in high integrity, the truth is that is not the case, and these non-compete agreements protect many people from this. And not just the top executives who will make a lot. Any person in the company that works on commission or development of the investment will truly face a substantial raise or promotion in the company, and if there were not non-competes in play, the people outsourcing information would not just put the executives, but their colleagues and possibly their friends' livelihood and financial situation in jeopardy at risk. Though this is not the full picture, while there are non-compete positives, there are also a lot of negatives and abuse with them. When someone signs a non-compete, they are stopped from doing a new company in the same industry for a long time, which at a glance seems like smart and good thinking, but that is not always the case. Someone at a company could feel discriminated against and want out of the situation they are in, but even if they do quit, they have nowhere else to go. They could sue their employer for violating their sole rights, which, if it is the case, is very hard to prove in court, and a lot of times these executives face immense protection in the courtroom. And sometimes that is not the case. Some people just do not match and fit with the company's culture, which is a normal thing and is very okay, but the employee is now stuck in a terrible situation. They can't leave because there is nowhere for them to go, and they don't want to stay because they feel unhappy and it feels like it is a dead end. And the executives fail to see the flaw in their non-competes and what they do to some employees. While they are common practice in this situation, they present many flaws. These executives fail to see the ethical issues in trapping their employees and the environment they have created because of these agreements. Asking the question, is it ethical to trap an employee in a company it is clear they do not fit into, or is that just how the business world is? My solution. So, what can be done about this heavily debated issue? It is very clear to me that there are many issues with them, but there are so many positives as well. These lawyers have become so troubled, but I believe there is a way out. Firstly, I would like to mention that I would like to become a lawyer in the future and hopefully be a named partner at a law firm. To me, parts of the non-compete agreements could be useful to me in the potential future, but the flaws are there and I would never want to make someone feel trapped and stuck in a job they don't want to be at. And with a lot of thought and reasoning, I think the answer to the issue is very clear. Non-compete agreements should be banned and prohibited country-wide. The original idea of a non-compete was a great idea, but the wide broadness of them has allowed them to become manipulated and become this awful thing that only allowed for it to do its original purpose. They were never meant to trap or control somebody, and anybody with slight morals should realize that as well. Using the utilitarian view, it will help you understand that this is the best decision because it is the most ethical decision. Banning non-compete agreements frees people and allows them to chase their dreams and not be forced or stuck. While non-competes had a lot of good to them though, other types of contracts under contract law that help the good parts of non-competes still exist. For example, one of the huge pieces of non-compete agreements helps companies protect their trade secrets, their assets, and any part of their company that gives them a credit advantage. But NDAs can do that for you. NDAs are non-disclosure agreements. Non-disclosure agreements do not allow you to discuss stuff from your job. They keep your company secrets protected while not forcing your employees to stay. I'm a strong believer in people's happiness as if you're not happy and enjoying life, what are you doing? And with the removal of non-competes, it allows people unhappy in companies to go get a new job and move up and on. If non-competes were to be banned, it might have executives worrying that their employees will never stay and always be jumping around and constantly negotiating and threatening to leave. But I do not see that outcome at all. Because if everyone has the ability to do it, then they would be just jumping back and forth to each other and get nowhere with themselves, which would quickly show to be true and not happen as soon as a ban on them is passed. And any poaching problem from other companies is covered with the anti-poaching agreements. I think that competing is so beautiful and when done fairly, it is completely ethical and legal. The only limitation to this problem of the removal of non-competes is people getting bored and tired of the same job and just wanting to get up and leave. But I think that is something that is normal and is better for them to leave than to be stuck in places they don't want to be. Overall, I think that the removal of non-compete agreements would allow anyone who is trapped and who is discriminated against to remove themselves from these situations and become their own person and do what they desire. Non-disclosure and non-poaching agreements protect the company's assets and secrets. And it protects companies from other companies as they try to steal their employees.