- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Our small Gov telling businesses what they cant do Noncompete clauses in crosshairs
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:21 pm to stout
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:21 pm to stout
Is banning non-compete as a condition of employment really that much more anti-freedom than banning union membership as a condition of employment?
Both increase freedom of the individual worker. It's difficult to say you support one and then not the other because of small government principles.
Both increase freedom of the individual worker. It's difficult to say you support one and then not the other because of small government principles.
2
Posted on 1/8/23 at 3:35 pm to BeepNode
quote:
Is banning non-compete as a condition of employment really that much more anti-freedom than banning union membership as a condition of employment?
No. Both should be allowed freely, or regulated at the state level.
This post was edited on 1/8/23 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 1/8/23 at 4:17 pm to BeepNode
quote:
Both increase freedom of the individual worker
No, like anything else, there are trade-offs and opportunity costs.
Under your logic, being a batista at Starbucks would be one if the freest jobs their is. Earning more $ equals more financial freedom, and companies requiring non-compete or anti-union clauses often pay more
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News