Whether the new proposals of the Confederation are gaining strength or that states continue to engage in non-competition agreements, it is good to see that there are still some issues that are so fundamental to our economic well-being that policy makers can find allies on the other side of the gang. In addition, some states have other types of non-competition restrictions. They have been unworkable in California for a long time; In most countries, too, even in the absence of a one-off status, courts generally maintain a non-compete agreement only if it protects an employer`s legitimate business interest and is reasonably limited in duration and space. The issue, of course, is that non-competition prohibitions are rarely considered by the courts, so this approach on a case-by-case basis is not sufficient. In the meantime, other states can and must act on this issue. Indeed, a bill has just been introduced in the District of Columbia prohibiting non-competition bans for people paid under $88,654 (3 times D.C minimum wage). Here are some important thoughts on how policy makers are considering their options: all participants who have completed the word association task, whether they have been subject to competition restrictions, have achieved similar results in terms of errors, skipped elements and time spent. We were not surprised by this finding: previous research has shown that people are primarily motivated by intrinsic motivations in creative efforts. It was therefore logical that subjects working with the word association should be less affected by a negative external incentive than people who work on mathematical tasks. New research suggests another reason to think about the introduction of such restrictions: in a large-scale experiment, we found that, under simulated competitive conditions, subjects were significantly less motivated and performed less well for cost-related tasks. What for? We believe that limiting employment in the future not only limits the external prospects of workers, but also reduces their ownership of their jobs, undermining their desire to act and develop their skills.
The resulting decline in performance can cause more harm to businesses than the actual loss of employees. Why are competition bans so bad? They face our fundamental American belief that everyone can work hard, develop skills and move on to a better opportunity to build a better life. Non-competition rules can attract workers to jobs they want to leave, whether for sexual harassment or other poor working conditions, or even for a bad boss. They limit the pool of talent and prevent employers from hiring the best worker for the job. Competition bans can also stifle economic dynamism and prevent people from starting their own businesses. Non-compete clauses are a standard feature of many employment contracts. Surveys show that in the United States, nearly half of engineers have signed agreements that limit their ability to work for or create competing companies later, as do executives in 70% of state-owned enterprises. Commonly believes that these agreements are essential for the companies behind innovation, as they help protect information and talent that are proprietary from competition.
The use of competition bans by employers has increased in recent years. These agreements prevent people from working for their former employer`s competitors and have been used sparingly to prevent, for example, executives with trade secrets or confidential business information from sharing them with new employers. Today, they are often used indiscriminately to cool employees` professional mobility without having access to this information.