Three-quarters?of?Americans?who?work,?do?so?for?a?firm.?They?have?contracts?setting?out?their?pay,?holiday,?benefits?and?sometimes?the?appropriate?way?to?dress?(although?not?in?journalism).?A?lot?of?contracts?also?say?whether?employees?may?work?for?a?competitor?if?they?leave?the?company.?It?is?hard?to?know?what?share?of?American?workers?are?restricted?by?these?non-compete?clauses,?but?the?available?evidence?suggests?it?may?be?as?high?as?one?in?five.?More?worrying,?these?clauses?are?as?likely?to?apply?to?workers?operating?deep-fat?fryers?in?fast-food?kitchens?as?they?are?to?workers?operating?in?the?conference?rooms?of?white-shoe?law?firms.?The?Federal?Trade?Commission?(ftc)?has?these?clauses?in?its?sights,?on?the?grounds?that?they?are?anticompetitive?and?suppress?wages.?

四分之三的美國人都在為公司工作。他們的合同規(guī)定他們的工資、假期、福利，有時還規(guī)定適當的著裝方式(盡管不是在新聞界)。許多合同還規(guī)定，如果員工離開公司，是否可以為競爭對手工作。受到這些競業(yè)禁止條款限制的美國員工有多少，很難得知，但現有的證據表明，這一比例可能高達五分之一。更令人擔憂的是，這些條款可能適用于在快餐店廚房里操作深油炸鍋的員工，也可能適用于在老牌律師事務所的會議室里工作的員工。聯邦貿易委員會盯上了這些條款，理由是這些條款是反競爭行為，而且壓低了工資。

Fans?of?non-compete?clauses?argue?that?scrapping?them?by?decree?will?invite?the?state?into?the?realm?of?private?contracts,?a?symptom?of?regulatory?excess.?They?have?a?point,?but?the?ftc’s?case?is?stronger.

競業(yè)禁止條款的擁護者認為，通過法令廢除競業(yè)條款，會把政府引入私人合同領域，這是監(jiān)管過度的一個癥狀。他們說得有道理，但聯邦貿易委員會的理由更有力。

It?is?easy?to?see?why?firms?like?non-compete?clauses,?which?are?designed?to?suppress?competition.?It?suits?companies?to?be?able?to?prevent?a?star?employee?from?joining?a?rival,?or?starting?out?on?their?own?and?wooing?clients.?But?there?are?also?some?arguments?that?non-competes?could?serve?the?public?interest.?Companies?sometimes?say?that?the?clauses?incentivise?them?to?think?about?talent?in?a?longer-term?way.?Why?bother?to?spend?time?and?money?on?training?employees?if?they?then?join?rival?firms?that?go?on?to?reap?the?benefit?of?the?investment??Some?companies?also?have?legitimate?worries?about?trade?secrets?walking?off?to?a?competitor?when?an?employee?leaves.

為什么公司喜歡抑制競爭的競業(yè)禁止條款，這很容易理解。有能力防止優(yōu)秀員工加入競爭對手，或自己創(chuàng)業(yè)并爭取客戶，這很合公司的意。但也有一些觀點認為，競業(yè)禁止協(xié)議有利于公共利益。公司有時會說，這些條款激勵他們從更長遠的角度考慮人才。如果員工隨后會加入競爭對手的公司，而這些競爭對手會繼續(xù)從投資中獲益，為什么還要費事花時間和金錢培訓員工呢??一些公司的擔憂也是合理的，他們擔心員工離職后，商業(yè)機密會泄露給競爭對手。

However,?a?non-compete?clause?is?a?heavy-handed?way?to?achieve?those?ends.?Intellectual-property?law?and?non-disclosure?agreements?exist?to?preserve?true?trade?secrets,?and?lots?of?firms?find?ways?to?keep?valuable?employees?without?shackling?them?to?their?jobs?using?non-compete?clauses.?The?public?interest?also?conflicts?with?the?firm’s?interest:?innovation?and?productivity?spread?when?better?ideas?about?how?to?do?things?become?widely?adopted.?Hiring?people?with?specific?knowledge?and?experience?can?speed?this?process?up,?which?is?one?reason?why?the?engineers?fired?by?tech?giants?like?Meta?and?Twitter?are?sought?after?by?firms?in?older?industries?eager?to?learn.

然而，競業(yè)禁止條款是實現這些目標的一種強硬手段。知識產權法和保密協(xié)議的存在是為了保護真實的商業(yè)秘密，許多公司都找到了既能留住有價值的員工，又不用使用競業(yè)禁止條款束縛他們的工作的方法。公共利益也與企業(yè)利益相沖突:?當更好的做事方法被廣泛采用時，就能提高創(chuàng)新和生產力。雇傭具有特定知識和經驗的人可以加快這一過程，這就是為什么被Meta和Twitter等科技巨頭解雇的工程師會受到渴望學習的老牌行業(yè)公司的追捧。

If?the?theory?points?in?one?direction,?the?evidence?from?how?non-competes?are?used?practically?screams.?In?2014?Jimmy?John’s,?a?chain?of?sandwich?shops,?was?found?to?have?inserted?a?two-year?non-compete?clause?in?its?employees’?contracts?which?barred?them?from?seeking?employment?with?any?rival?business?that?made?money?by?“selling?submarine,?hero-type,?deli-style,?pita?and/or?wrapped?or?rolled?sandwiches”?within?a?three-mile?radius?of?where?they?currently?worked.?After?this?egregious?example?came?to?light,?the?company?ended?the?practice.?But?franchises?often?stop?employees?from?going?to?work?at?other?outlets?of?the?same?franchise,?reducing?their?bargaining?power.

如果這一理論指明了一個方向，那么競業(yè)禁止條款的使用方式就足以證明這一點。2014年，三明治連鎖店Jimmy?John’s被發(fā)現在其員工合同中加入了一項為期兩年的競業(yè)禁止條款，該條款禁止員工在其目前工作的方圓三英里內，通過“銷售潛艇三明治、熟食式、口袋和/或包裝或卷著的三明治”賺錢的任何競爭對手公司尋找工作。在這個令人震驚的例子曝光后，該公司結束了這種做法。但特許經營權往往會阻止員工去同一特許經營權的其他分店工作，這就降低了他們的議價能力。

It?strains?credulity?to?argue?that?these?workers?are?the?guardians?of?trade?secrets.?Instead,?the?evidence?is?that?firms?use?non-compete?clauses?to?drive?down?wages?by?lowering?the?value?of?workers?in?the?job?market.?About?half?of?people?with?non-compete?clauses?in?their?contracts?work?in?states?where?they?cannot?legally?be?enforced.?They?may?get?away?with?it?because?employees?do?not?know?their?rights,?especially?those?in?the?low-paid?part?of?the?labour?market.

?認為這些工人是商業(yè)秘密的守護者，這很難讓人輕信。相反，有證據表明，企業(yè)利用競業(yè)禁止條款，通過降低工人在就業(yè)市場上的價值來壓低工資。約半數合同中有競業(yè)禁止條款的人在法律無法強制執(zhí)行的州工作。他們可能會僥幸逃脫，因為員工不知道自己的權利，尤其是那些在勞動力市場中低收入的人。

The?evidence?that?non-compete?clauses?really?make?companies?more?innovative?and?higher-skilled?is?scarcely?more?convincing.?Washington?state,?home?to?Amazon?and?Microsoft,?takes?a?middle?path?by?restricting?non-compete?clauses?to?the?contracts?of?high-earners.?California,?the?global?hq?of?disruptive?innovation,?goes?a?step?further?and?bans?non-competes?altogether.?The?ftc?should?do?the?same,?on?the?grounds?that?they?are?anticompetitive.

競業(yè)禁止條款確實能讓公司更具創(chuàng)新性、技術水平更高，這一點也很難令人信服。亞馬遜和微軟總部所在地華盛頓州采取了中間路線，將競業(yè)禁止條款限制在高收入者的合同中。全球顛覆性創(chuàng)新總部——加利福尼亞州則更進一步，全面禁止競業(yè)禁止。聯邦貿易委員會也應該這么做，因為它們是反競爭行為的。