comment: >
  
  I would take this story with a massive grain of salt, but if it’s 100% accurate, I wonder what the other shops are offering these employees that she was not?  
  Was the other shop paying these people the whole time so they would come back afterward?  Cuz that would defeat the purpose of skipping on training costs in the first place.
context: In Denmark a non.compete clause require the employer to pay salary for as long as the clause runs. It tend to limit the use to those few key persons, where there are genuine concerns. >
  
  Exactly. If an employee is vital enough that the employer doesn't want them working for a competitor, they're vital enough to guarantee continued employment. Otherwise the employer is just abusing their imbalance of power to exert control over the employee. >
  
  I believe the free market guy was out buying turnips from that truck in the parking lot. >
  
  I wonder if he has a license to sell turnips >
  
  Of course Jan has a license, he just has to... Go grab it to prove it. >
  
  The only non-compete that should exist is a five year ban on allowing a politician to go work for a lobbying firm. >
  
  And lobbyists going to work as politicians >
  
  What’s a lobbyist then?  Would I be excluded for my work getting funding for pedestrian, bike, and bus routes in my area?
  Would my social worker friends who work for funding for their organizations be banned?
  This is like term limits discussions, it can sound good until you dive in to the details. >
  
  You mistake being a volunteer advocate for a paid lobbyist. Apples & oranges. >
  
  The commenter above never said that work was unpaid, that was an assumption you added. >
  
  I specified the kind of lobbyist in discussion was full time and generally working for corporate/private interests over societal. >
  
  What’s the difference between corporate interests and societal interests? What if a railroad company wants to build high speed rail between LA and SF in California? What if an auto workers union wants more electric car subsidies? What if a health insurance company wants shorter terms for pharmaceutical patents?
  You act like companies aren’t part of society, but they are. Society doesn’t exist without companies, and companies don’t exist without society. The people running companies are members of the society, and just like anyone else they can lobby for good or bad things. >
  
  We may have crossed wires somewhere because I don’t disagree with that.
  What I see a danger in is things like Dick Cheney serving in a political role straight from Halliburton, launching the war in Iraq against all US interests at a cost of $4 Trillion taxpayer dollars and many American lives where the main beneficiary was Halliburton (whose value jumped 800% from his efforts) and other private military contractors.
  Also look at how the the Sackler family got FDA perks for OxyContin and you’ll see the kind of stopgap people favoring this legislation mean.
  When private corporations fund politicians for sweetheart deals to the public’s detriment, America loses. I hope we can agree on that much. >
  
  We all agree with you that the examples you give are bad.  It’s that you can’t write a rule to prevent that which wouldn’t crippled good lobbying. >
  
  Employer sponsored health insurance is inherently also anti-freedom and fascist.  
  No one is really free to chose their line of work if their well being is physically tied to the will of a corporation 
  There can be no “pulling of the bootstraps” until we are truly free from employer contributions and deductibles thst reset when we change jobs. >
  
  I'm not defending our health insurance model necessarily, but it's not fascist. That's just not what the word fascist means. >
  
  I mean, that's not what libertarianism means either.
  I feel like this whole discussion is bizarrely misusing terms that have actual definitions.
  Our health insurance system very clearly has problems. It is also not fascist nor libertarian. >
  
  The system itself isn't the problem.  Its the Corporate NEED for endless growth and profits that is the problem.  Along with locking people to their job by tying it all to employer insurance.  
  This is the part that is Corporate Facism.  This is the part that is Libertarian Cancer.  That these big corps basically make us slaves with lock in. >
  
  I am just saying that fascism and libertarianism have specific definitions relating to forms of or philosophies about government.
  You are welcome to not agree with me, but it is bizarre to see words used so distantly from their actual definitions. >
  
  Doctors deal with it constantly now. If I take a job at the local hospital and they lied about the job or it’s just a bad job, I can’t leave and go to the next hospital over in town. You essentially have to uproot your family and move out of state. At times doctors have less bargaining power than nurses or any other employee. And the irony is that it applied to all doctors, including those who don’t even have patients to “steal”, like pathologists and radiologists >
  
  This should not apply to doctors. Honestly, it shouldn't apply to anyone. The idea was that it would prevent technology and trade secrets from going to a competitor but those things are protected by patents and trade secret/non disclosure agreements. There's no reason for them. >
  
  I'll point out one that isn't so much a recipe non-compete and more like what you're talking and use it as an example.
  Dog Grooming takes roughly 4 months of training. Maybe 6, plus equipment costs of around 600 bucks and that's for all of your basic level equipment. Because of that, it's actually hard to find a shop that will hire you as a paid groomer apprentice. The one I got hired to actually paid you while you apprenticed and paid for your equipement, but we had to sign a non-compete agreement that basically said "upon finishing my training, I will work here for at least 1 year before going to another dog grooming place."
  If you up and left grooming, that was fine. You just couldn't work for another dog groomer. And her reason? She had a couple people train under her and than within a couple months of finishing they went to another grooming shop. Turns out, the owners of those shops had sent them to her shop to get the training so that they didn't have to pay for it and the equipment.