Do you have any evidence to support the idea that non-compete clauses actually lead to greater training? It strikes me that this is a convenient post-hoc rationalisation, but I'm not convinced it is actually true. If the worker requires the skills to do the job, then the company really has no choice but to put them through training. They may prefer the worker did not leave, but this does not imply that they would not pay for the training.
On a separate note, non-compete clauses are an overly exploitative way to achieve the effect you're talking about. Workers are not always very mobile - they may have family in the area or be restricted by visa requirements etc. Why not just have a contract that allows for a worker to 'work off' the value of the training. That way if they leave, the company is reimbursed.
While writing such articles, please at least make a good faith effort to indicate that you give an ounce about workers. You completely failed to mention that employees can get fired by the company, and still have the non-compete enforced on them. How about making bonded slavery legal, maybe that will also possibly increase production of goods and services? Would you like to have entered a marriage contract if the wife was allowed to cheat on you, while you were not?
I see your argument about training. It is a legitimate problem. I do not believe that non-competes are fundamentally against fairness of work. However, non-competes with one side able to walk away with no cost is just plain ridiculous.
Do you have any evidence to support the idea that non-compete clauses actually lead to greater training? It strikes me that this is a convenient post-hoc rationalisation, but I'm not convinced it is actually true. If the worker requires the skills to do the job, then the company really has no choice but to put them through training. They may prefer the worker did not leave, but this does not imply that they would not pay for the training.
On a separate note, non-compete clauses are an overly exploitative way to achieve the effect you're talking about. Workers are not always very mobile - they may have family in the area or be restricted by visa requirements etc. Why not just have a contract that allows for a worker to 'work off' the value of the training. That way if they leave, the company is reimbursed.
While writing such articles, please at least make a good faith effort to indicate that you give an ounce about workers. You completely failed to mention that employees can get fired by the company, and still have the non-compete enforced on them. How about making bonded slavery legal, maybe that will also possibly increase production of goods and services? Would you like to have entered a marriage contract if the wife was allowed to cheat on you, while you were not?
I see your argument about training. It is a legitimate problem. I do not believe that non-competes are fundamentally against fairness of work. However, non-competes with one side able to walk away with no cost is just plain ridiculous.
This articles only states the obvious benefits non-competes have for the companies, but it doesn't show any benefit for the workers.