> Why would it only feel fair based on some "arbitrary" rules you intuitively feel are right? Why not let people negotiate based on their personal situations, and let the market eventually sort out what combination works best?
Because the best solution from an economic position can involve screwing over people in more vulnerable positions?
From TFA we have manual labourers and QC workers in a factory being forced into non-competes. These are not people with much power in the free market.
> Wouldn't that just mean the bar for hiring new employees would be even higher, because if they don't work out, you're both wasting lots of investment, and also running the risk of them taking your methods to a new company?
I mean, if they sucked at following the methods to the point you let them go, surely their attempt at bringing them to a new company would likely backfire
Because the best solution from an economic position can involve screwing over people in more vulnerable positions?
From TFA we have manual labourers and QC workers in a factory being forced into non-competes. These are not people with much power in the free market.
> Wouldn't that just mean the bar for hiring new employees would be even higher, because if they don't work out, you're both wasting lots of investment, and also running the risk of them taking your methods to a new company?
I mean, if they sucked at following the methods to the point you let them go, surely their attempt at bringing them to a new company would likely backfire