Ethical Issues About NonCompete Clause
High tech companies require noncompete clause for their engineers and managers and it is
reasonable to maintain their intellectual property. Those workers’ wages meet their needs and wants beyond the basic needs and they have status and other perks. They have more options than low skilled workers. However, low skilled workers in a low paid jobs’ main concern is usually to make a living, meet their basic needs barely. These workers work hard like machines until they get exhausted with unpredictable schedules. Requiring noncompete clause for those workers who don’t have many job options especially while the unemployment rate is high is normatively wrong from many different ethical theories. First of all, it is wrong from deontological standpoint. Because, this is basically using people which is against the Kant’s categorical imperative. For instance, if workers making sandwiches at Jimmy Jones get fired for some reasons, they can’t work for another fast food company for two years. It is easy to fire people, there is no strong unions or committees that will pursue those workers’ rights. The intention is so cruel due to using people like interchangeable cogs and the reason why the company does it has no reasonable point in terms of holding the company’s values from competitors. Secondly, it is wrong from utilitarianism approach. If we judge this action by the total amount of unhappiness it creates, this is extremely horrible. It is adding salt to the injury. For instance, let’s imagine workers in low paid jobs at Jimmy Jones got fired. They might have had debts, medical bills, utility expenses, rent and so forth. Assumably, those people have to find another job to survive and due to noncompete clause, they can’t apply to hundreds of fast food chains which make finding job harder and harder while the unemployment rate is high. Already working in fast food restaurants like a machine would not be a job that makes people happy and the only motivation is money. Now it creates an unhappiness chain. Also, it is wrong from consequentialist standpoint. Because, this action has bad consequences which have no benefits and values for anything either intrinsically or
