I'm trying to think of why the powers that be want this too, and the only thing I can think of is to expand their hiring pool/make poaching legal. Maybe I'm too cynical.
Option 1: The labor pool is a free market. This means that companies are free to choose who to hire, and workers are free to choose who to work for. Non-compete agreements prevent the latter, and so the market becomes inefficient.
Option 2: The labor pool is a class struggle, in which employees exploit their workers. Non-compete agreements of a form of exploitation, tying a worker’s livelihood to a single employer.
Option 3: Employees belong to the company they work for. Non-compete agreements codify this natural relationship. Hiring a different company’s employee is a form of theft, and is called “poaching”.
Option 4: Any voluntary, informed contract is valid. Non-compete agreements are one such contract. Forbidding non-compete agreements is an unjust restriction.
Under options 1 or 2, non-compete agreements are clearly unethical. Option 3 requires accepting an unethical premise. Option 4 requires stretching the terms “voluntary” and “informed” to apply to Morton’s Fork.
I’d put the question another way: Given the negative effects of non-competes, why should they be allowed?
Yes, but another way to look at it is that the volume of successful strikes of the last few years are making the powers-that-be sweat a bit.
This feels like a sacrifice play to me. I'm sure that the cost of improving wages, hours, and benefits so as to retain staff is a lot less than improving all those things plus the overall cost to the business and/or economy of a strike.
Option 2: The labor pool is a class struggle, in which employees exploit their workers. Non-compete agreements of a form of exploitation, tying a worker’s livelihood to a single employer.
Option 3: Employees belong to the company they work for. Non-compete agreements codify this natural relationship. Hiring a different company’s employee is a form of theft, and is called “poaching”.
Option 4: Any voluntary, informed contract is valid. Non-compete agreements are one such contract. Forbidding non-compete agreements is an unjust restriction.
Under options 1 or 2, non-compete agreements are clearly unethical. Option 3 requires accepting an unethical premise. Option 4 requires stretching the terms “voluntary” and “informed” to apply to Morton’s Fork.
I’d put the question another way: Given the negative effects of non-competes, why should they be allowed?