[faeriechangling]

I don’t see it as the governments job to ensure the loyalty of those with privileged information through legal force, that should be ensured through higher salaries. It’s an example of a law which exists purely to facilitate inequality and to ensure that people paid so little they will never become homeowners can be threatened with joblessness and poverty if they get a competitor to increase their salaries because of the value of the information they know. These non-competes make it companies can expense enforcing loyalty through legal force to the public purse, instead of actually having to pay for loyalty.

Most laws revolving around protecting corporate secrets are enablers of inequality that the public pays for. It’s one of these services the government provides to business that it really shouldn’t.

[tekacs]

As per line one of my comment — I also don’t much like non-competes.

The only reason I commented was to dispel and push back on the conspiracy-esque style that the parent commenter used to characterise /how/ the law got written this way.