In recent months there have been some headlines on the legality of Non-Competes. Should they be legal, or illegal. One thought is that it protects the companies intellectual property and encourages the company to invest in its staff.  On the other side of the topic is outlawing Non-competes (already illegal in California, Minnesota, North Dakota and Oklahoma. Many other states have partial restrictions. In my opinion they should be illegal. I can see a need for C-Level executives and those at a significant level of income (Say over $1mm/year). But for all the other line staff, No. They prevent you from pursuing better opportunities to increase your income and provide for your family. If the company is treating there employees amazing, they wont leave. I have been under very restrictive non-compete agreements in my career, I don't think they should be allowed. New York had a proposal to outlaw them and the governor rejected it (Don't get me started on that). In my opinion the person that gets hurt the most is the consumer, the one paying the bills. If you are doing business with someone for a long period of time and have a high degree of trust, then that person changes jobs to go to a different company, you, as the consumer (In theory) are not allowed to follow them. They will get dragged into court  because they took there relationship with them. Government needs to get out of the way, and companies need to treat there employees so good, pay them so well, give them opportunity to advance, and they would never want to leave. 

What does Gotham think?