[baron816]

When I first tried to transition into tech, I had a really hard time getting someone to hire me. I had a lot of potential, but no one wanted to take a risk on someone without experience. I still needed some training, and no one wanted to train me, just to see me leave in a few years.

That seems to be an argument for keeping non-compete clauses--allow firms to hire people on the condition that they'll stay a few years once they've be trained and can at least recoup the cost of training. Something like that would've been in my favor.

Maybe a better solution would be something like the government will pay a company if an employee leaves within some time frame after getting hired (2 years or so) if that employee gets a higher paying job in a similar role. It'd be tricky to structure correctly, but the whole idea is that what the government is really paying for is job training insurance. It mitigates the risk for firms for hiring people, thus making hiring faster and keeping people out of unemployment.

[neilv]

> allow firms to hire people on the condition that they'll stay a few years once they've be trained and can at least recoup the cost of training

I favor training, loyalty, seeing a system through a lifecycle (rather than job-hopping before you see both cause and effect), etc., but...

Requiring an employee to stay at a company, especially in our current not-very-scrupulous business culture, sounds like a recipe for indentured servitude.

[baron816]

Read my last paragraph. I'm suggesting a way that would allow employees to leave whenever they want, but to derisk training for companies so that they still have an incentive to hire and train untested people.

[ghaff]

That seems close to arguing for indentured servitude.

What companies probably can do in general (not an employment lawyer) is have a contract requiring the repayment of outside training if you leave on your own volition before some period of time--which seems reasonable.

[baron816]

Please read my whole comment. That's not anywhere close to what I'm arguing for.

[Pulcinella]

What you want is literally just contract employment (not the same thing as being a "contractor"). It's common in the world of teaching (though these days it's generally just for the school year. In the past 3 year contracts were more normal). It's not very common in the world of business and instead employment is generally at-will (which is another reason why non-competes are BS. At-Will employment lets the company fire you whenever they want, but the non-compete makes it difficult for you to leave whenever you want).

[baron816]

What? Can you please read my whole comment?

[lotsofpulp]

> That seems to be an argument for keeping non-compete clauses

That was an argument that the labor buyers you were negotiating with were perceiving an excess supply of labor that they wanted relative to demand at that time.

Your solution would have been to try to sell to other labor buyers or change the type of labor you were selling to something that was in sufficient demand such that buyers would not have a choice other than to train you, and treat you well enough such that you are incentivized to stick around.

[MAGZine]

or, maybe if a company is scared of losing an employee, they should pay them market value.

holding a grudge over them because you trained them and are trying to recoup your costs is idiotic and doesn't work.

asking the government to subsidize corporate training is a non-starter. it is a corporation's job to both DEVELOP and RETAIN talent. Both. Companies would like very much to do neither--but putting in the effort is required for good results.

[baron816]

You say this like "this is the moral and right thing to do". If I could snap my fingers and make it happen, then I would. That's not how the world works though. Companies have a profit incentive. And that's a good thing. We want them to train employees in ways that will be productive and end up having them output something that is valuable. But that training can be expensive.

What happens if everyone concludes that they'd be better off waiting for a competitor to incur the cost of training someone, then hiring them away? We'd get into a situation where no one wants to train anyone.

[AlotOfReading]

Non-competes exist and that's already the situation. They're all over the place in basic retail, who I can assure you is not doing a lot of valuable training.