Some companies in fields where skilled employees are hard to find make signing an agreement not to compete a condition of employment. In such an agreement the employee promises not to go work for a competing firm for a set period after leaving his or her current employer. Courts are increasingly ruling that these agreements are not binding. Yet paradoxically, for people who signed such agreements when working for competing firms, many firms are unwilling to consider hiring them during the period covered by the agreement.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the paradox?
(A) Many companies will not risk having to become involved in lawsuits, even suits that they expect to have a favorable outcome.
(B) In some industries, for example the broadcast media, companies main source of new employees tends to be people who are already employed by competing firms.
(C) Most companies that require their employees to sign agreements not to compete are aware that these documents are not legally binding.
(D) Many people who have signed agreements not to compete are unwilling to renege on a promise by going to work for a competing firm.
(E) Many companied consider their employees established relationships with clients and other people outside the company to be valuable company assets.
iPhone/iPod/iPad: GMAT ToolKit - The bestselling GMAT prep app | GMAT Club (free) | PrepGame | GRE ToolKit | LSAT ToolKit
Android: GMAT ToolKit (NEW!). POLL: What tool do you need next?
Math: GMAT Math Book ||| General: GMATTimer ||| Chicago Booth: Slide Presentation
The People Who Are Crazy Enough to Think They Can Change the World, Are the Ones Who Do.
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates