When it comes to the employer-employee relationship, trust is paramount. Unfortunately, noncompete clauses have been a staple of employment contracts for decades, yet they inherently erode trust between employees and employers. Noncompetes are outdated and should be abolished as a contractual obligation in order to foster authentic trust between the two parties. In this blog post, we will examine why noncompetes dissolve trust and why they should be eliminated from employment contracts altogether.
Noncompete clauses are designed to prevent employees from leaving a company and using the knowledge they gained while employed there to compete against their former employer. These clauses have been a mainstay of employment contracts for decades, but recently they have come under increasing scrutiny due to the potential damage they can do to an employer/employee relationship.
The language of noncompete clauses varies, but they typically restrict an employee from working in a similar position or field for a set period of time after leaving the company. This period of time could be up to two years. Companies use noncompetes to protect their trade secrets, confidential information, and even client relationships.
While these clauses can be beneficial for employers, it is important to consider the potential negative effects they can have on employees. It is common for noncompete clauses to be included in employment contracts without the employee’s knowledge or consent. This can leave employees feeling restricted in their ability to find new employment opportunities. Additionally, noncompete clauses can make it difficult for employees to negotiate better salaries and other benefits as companies can threaten to take away any benefit if the employee does not comply with the clause.
Noncompete clauses are often seen as an unfair limitation on the employee’s ability to find new employment, particularly if the clause is overly broad. Noncompete clauses can also prevent employers from accessing a larger talent pool and stifle competition. Additionally, they can create a power imbalance in the employer/employee relationship, as the employee has no choice but to accept the terms of the noncompete. This leads to a lack of trust, as the employee may feel like their employer does not value them or their abilities. Noncompete clauses also raise legal questions, as many of them are unenforceable due to their overly broad nature.
In short, noncompete clauses should be eliminated for all contracts as they are damaging to the employer/employee relationship and can create more problems than solutions. Authentic trust is much more important than a contractual obligation, and should be given priority over noncompete clauses.
Authentic trust is far more important than a contractual obligation when it comes to the employer/employee relationship. It’s been shown that employers who have a trusting relationship with their employees are more likely to be productive, successful, and satisfied with their work. Noncompete clauses, on the other hand, create an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion, which can lead to an unhealthy working environment and a decline in employee morale.
Noncompetes also make it difficult for employees to find new employment opportunities after leaving their current job. These clauses limit the options available to them and can be used to restrict their professional growth. This means that employees may not be able to find a job that offers them a better salary or greater career advancement opportunities.
Finally, noncompete clauses do nothing to promote loyalty between employers and employees. Trust is built upon shared interests and goals, not contractual obligations. By eliminating noncompetes, employers can create an atmosphere of trust, respect, and open communication between themselves and their employees, which will lead to better performance and improved results.
Currently the FTC is considering banning noncompetes from all their contracts. Check it out at the WJS