In a free market, the company with the most to offer an employee gets the best employees. That’s fair. Idaho just made it one of the hardest places to attract new talent. Why? Non-compete agreements.
A non-compete agreement limits what someone can do after they leave a job. Traditionally used only for executives, some companies have branched out and used them for everything from fast food cashier to salesperson to CEO. States vary with how enforceable non-competes are and how much they can limit a person’s future opportunities. In California, they are pretty much unenforceable, which has been great for Silicon Valley.
Idaho, which has a strong tech industry, made enforcing non-competes easier, which means bad news for employees. Why? If your company has you trapped by a non-compete, they can underpay you or treat your poorly with the smug knowledge that you’re stuck. After all, a below market paycheck is better than no paycheck while you sit and wait for your non-compete to expire.
To keep reading, click here: Have a Great Startup Idea? Don’t Move to Idaho. Here’s Why.
Setting aside the non-compete issue, this behavior is more in line with a state that when given an opportunity to attract good paying jobs, does everything possible to prevent that from happening. Jobs are scarce and jobs that pay a living wage are even fewer. There isn’t a “high tech ” boom, just a handful of 1-2 employee start ups that are all owned by and employ men. Women and non-Mormons are routinely discriminated against and if you look at the the background in this case, it was a woman asking to be treated as an equal in a good ol’ boy network. Because there are so few job options, many people have to stay in toxic discriminatory work environments because there is no where else to move without leaving the state. This law is another example in Idaho’s long history of using a sledge hammer approach to a problem that never existed in order to maintain control and prevent change.
I’ve been struck lately by people in my industry who say they can’t hire at entry level, because potential employees go to better paying jobs first…well, have they considered paying more?