Noncompete clauses (NCCs), or agreements by employees to not work for a competitor or start a competing business, have recently faced increased public scrutiny and criticism. This article provides a qualified defense of NCCs. I focus on the argument that NCCs should be banned because they unfairly restrict the options of employees. I argue that this argument fails because it neglects the economist Thomas Schelling’s insight that limiting exit options can be beneficial for a person. This employee-based defense of NCCs does not absolve all their uses, but it does give us a rough test for evaluating the permissibility of NCCs. With this test in hand, I turn to some of the more controversial uses of NCCs. For those who weigh heavily the interests of employees, the question is not whether NCCs, but when.

中文翻译：

---

竞业禁止条款的伦理

竞业禁止条款 (NCC) 或员工达成的不为竞争对手工作或开展竞争性业务的协议，最近受到越来越多的公众监督和批评。本文为 NCC 提供了合格的辩护。我关注的论点是 NCC 应该被禁止，因为它们不公平地限制了员工的选择。我认为这个论点失败是因为它忽略了经济学家 Thomas Schelling 的见解，即限制退出选择可能对一个人有益。这种基于员工的 NCC 辩护并不能免除其所有用途，但它确实为我们评估 NCC 的许可性提供了一个粗略的测试。有了这个测试，我转向一些更有争议的 NCC 用途。对于那些非常重视员工利益的人来说，问题不在于是否是 NCC，而在于何时。