[MereInterest]

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?