[lbo-talk] Welcome to indentured servitude

[Wojtek S]

"No competition" clauses have been quite common in professions where
intellectual property is at stake.  They actually offer some protection to
prospective employees or consultants from mining their ideas by
unscrupulous employers or partners.  What I find surprising is the use of
that clause in semi-professional jobs where no intellectual property is at
stake, hairdressers, drivers etc.  The most ludicrous example of it that
I've seen was someone I knew working for a fast food chain and having to
sign a "no competition" clause.   I wonder what the rationale behind it is.

 It actually costs money to enforce such contracts, they need to retain an
attorney to do this, and I do not see any obvious financial benefits to the
employer.

One possible explanation can be found in the "organizational isomorphism"
theory of organizational behavior.  This theory maintains that under
certain conditions organizations copy cat other organizations perceived as
"successful models" in a field and thus become more an mode alike.  A
corollary to this theory is that managers are often clueless idiots who do
not know what they are doing, but they are very concerned about creating
appearances of their competence.  Mimicking "successful models" is a
Dilbert-like strategy of creating professional appearances while being
clueless.  The spread of "no compete" contracts to areas where they serve
so seemingly useful purpose may be a result of such managerial copy cat
behavior.

Any other thoughts?

-- 
Wojtek

"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."