How Boston Globe's 'Noncompete Claws' Op-Ed Piece Misses the Mark
In a cleverly titled December 1 Boston Globe Op-Ed piece, "Noncompete Claws," Jeremy Hitchcock argues that noncompete provisions (a/k/a restrictive covenants), in employee contracts are to blame for the Massachusetts technology sector's general stagnation.
It is a rather bold claim. And it's too bad that he provides almost no empirical data to support his conclusion.
Hitchcock's piece claims that tech companies in other areas of the country seem to be flourishing as compared to Massachusetts, and rather than dissect the myriad possibilities as to why this may be the case (and forgetting that not all tech industries are identical), summarily concludes that the sole cause for this purported disparity is the enforcement or negation of noncompete agreements.
While I think that a debate over the merits versus costs of noncompete clauses is worthwhile, the debate should be an informed one, based on legitimate research grounded in scientific method rather than rank speculation. Sadly, this article falls well short of that mark.