[HN Gopher] U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor con...
___________________________________________________________________
U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts
Author : yoelo
Score : 651 points
Date : 2023-01-05 15:07 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| gen220 wrote:
| I think we're all pretty familiar with the arguments _against_
| non-competes. Does anybody have a compelling argument _for_ them,
| as practiced in 2023 in the US?
|
| While we're at it, does anybody have a compelling justification
| for allowing non-poach agreements, too?
|
| From my perspective, they both seem like a non-durable benefit to
| $current_employer at the expense of a compounding opportunity
| cost to the greater economy (insofar as it hinders an efficient
| execution of the labor-employer matching process).
|
| Curious if anybody has an interesting argument for why this is
| OK. The only thing that comes to mind is "trade secrets"
| arguments, but don't we have separate laws for that?
| DannyBee wrote:
| It depends entirely on your target goal.
|
| If your target goal is something like "maximization of worker
| pay",for example (really, i'm not suggesting that's what you
| want, it's just a convenient example), then no, there will
| never be a compelling argument for non-competes, because they
| always stand in the way of that particular goal.
|
| This is because costs by employers can always be expressed
| without non-competes somehow to within some reason, and not get
| in the way of _that_ goal (but may harm others).
|
| For example - there are fields where large amounts of on-the-
| job training is paid for by employers. Certainly they don't get
| nothing out of it in the end, but they have upfront costs too.
| It is more frontloaded cost wise, such that if the employee
| leaves immediately after training, the employer would lose
| money.
|
| The literal training cost can simply be expressed as an actual
| penalty for leaving rather than a non-compete. But the loss of
| time and need to train someone else (IE the time during which
| you would have made more money on the person who just left) is
| harder to value as a penalty (since it depends on what your
| profit would have been, which is probably variable, and lots of
| other things). So that is often expressed as a non-compete. But
| that would still stand in the way of "worker pay maximization",
| so that particular difficulty is not compelling for that goal
| (IE you could just assign a value to it and deal)
|
| Similarly, there are fields where there are not enough people,
| and great upfront cost may be spend in acquiring people
| (doctors in rural areas, etc). Normally they would non-compete
| them and give a significant hiring bonus. You can also express
| this as a penalty, but it still puts you out a doctor for the
| time it takes to recruit someone else, etc, which is bad for
| the community. But not for worker pay!
|
| If you go for worker pay maximization, them taking a 250k bonus
| to go work in that area, then leaving a year later (or
| whatever), maximizes their pay. It also likely forces the
| community to pay more to the next person to have that not
| happen!
|
| So again, if your target goal is maximization of worker pay,
| no, I think there is no compelling arguments for non-competes.
|
| If you switch your goal to say something like "maximization of
| production of useful things", maybe you could get to more
| compelling argument, because constant job hopping by everyone,
| while maximizing worker pay, probably interferes with
| maximizing the production of useful things.
|
| Or if you introduce some balance of goals, maybe.
| gen220 wrote:
| I think my goal would be "maximization of [responsible]
| production of useful things".
|
| Constant job-hopping requires an employer who wants to hire
| you. If you're a "constant-job-hopper", you'll find few
| people who want to hire you.
|
| NCs are not only a meaningful barrier to fair compensation,
| they also seem to be a barrier to the allocation of labor to
| more productive businesses that, by virtue of their
| productivity, can afford to pay higher compensation.
| Digory wrote:
| In theory, it lowers the risk of hiring in certain situations.
| So, if the alternative is not hiring, that's beneficial.
|
| For a lot of companies, the "sauce" is a personal relationship
| that isn't trade secret. If you hire a salesman, and give them
| access to Mr. Big, you create an incentive for the employee to
| trade the relationship for your competitor's money.
|
| Penalizing the change in employer is not the only way to deal
| with it, of course. Without a non-compete, you might have to
| buy/keep the salesman's loyalty. Which may or may not be an
| economic deadweight.
| gen220 wrote:
| That makes sense as to why an employer would want a non-
| compete.
|
| Is there some way that this translates into why "we the
| people" would want to allow companies to enforce non-
| competes?
|
| From my perspective, if a company's sauce is personal
| relationships, the non-compete is not particularly effective
| in engendering loyalty and extracting the greatest value from
| that relationship.
|
| A disaffected salesperson is not going to be enthusiastic
| about leveraging their relationships for an employer they're
| unhappy with -- whether they're under a non-compete, or not.
| This means they'll extract the minimal value to keep their
| salary, but not the maximal value out of the potential they
| have access to.
|
| In fact, a non-compete prevents that salesperson from
| bringing that relationship to a different company, where that
| relationship might produce greater dividends for "we the
| people" (as measured by the new company's ability to attract
| salespeople and engender their loyalty).
| Digory wrote:
| 1. Shifting profits from the entrepreneur (with skin in the
| game of providing consumer wants) to the middleman can be
| deadweight. You'd want some evidence that rewarding
| disloyal middlemen results in we the consumer surplus, not
| just a flourishing middle-man economy.
|
| There can be price-discovery benefits to middlemen, like
| market makers at the NYSE. But the financial markets
| usually involve fungible goods. Consumers seem to benefit
| from finding ways around the middlemen, though.
|
| 2. We the people have egalitarian ideals about jobs and
| opportunities. The old-fashioned way to 'lock in ' people
| to loyalty is to hire family or from the same social
| strata. Historically, those benefits have been distributed
| unfairly.
|
| So the non-compete provides some mechanism for the "haves"
| to spread around opportunities to the "have-not-so-many-
| reasons-to-be-loyal," understanding that the law will
| enforce the agreement to be not-disloyal.
| gen220 wrote:
| Good points! Let me try to dissect them, let me know what
| you think.
|
| 1. I agree with the themes of not paying disloyal
| middlemen, but I'm not sure if it applies to the example.
|
| > You'd want some evidence that rewarding disloyal
| middlemen results in we the consumer surplus,
|
| If entrepreneur Y is willing to pay 2x the salary of
| entrepreneur X for the same employee, presumably its
| because Y thinks they can use the salesperson's
| relationships (at least) twice as productively.
|
| In that case, Y has a product to sell that is twice as
| valuable as X's. As a consumer, don't we want companies
| we engage with to use the most valuable products?
|
| I'm not suggesting that we pay unaligned people more
| (obviously, this is bad). Rather, I'm saying we shouldn't
| erect barriers to prevent disgruntled employees from
| leaving, because we're paying the opportunity cost of
| them not being a more productive employee at a
| competitor.
|
| 2. I'm not sure if this holds up in 2023, where talent
| networks are global and talent discovery is so cheap.
|
| I think this argument makes sense if the skills of people
| who are signing non-competes were not so rare and in-
| demand. If I exclusively depended on family ties to run a
| company in 2023, I'd expect my competition to run me
| over.
| mnehring wrote:
| So, here are a couple of arguments for:
|
| 1. I have a relative who is an MD. He was recruited cross-
| country at great expense. (Average cost to recruit an MD can be
| about $250K). So, if his comp was $200K/year and it cost $250K
| to recruit, a neighboring practice could monitor for new
| incoming docs, and make an offer of $220K/year in salary to the
| newly hired doc. If that happened, it would be in the best
| interest of the doc to switch jobs, but the original practice
| would be out $250K in recruitment costs.
|
| 2. In the case of an acqui-hire, the team is often the special
| sauce. You embed a bit of non-compete in the form of stock
| options that vest on a particular schedule, but it may be
| tricky to structure the deal in an attractive way without a
| non-compete and non-poach agreement.
|
| 3. Trade secrets are often hard to cover in NDA's. Your trade
| secrets may become embedded in the employee's mind in a manner
| that they cannot extricate. So, if your employee receives
| training that includes your trade secrets, those trade secrets
| will be implicitly used at the next job.
|
| So, I think the argument basically boils down to there being a
| vast upfront cost to the employer for getting a new employee.
| If the employee switches to another company, the value of that
| upfront cost transfers to the new company with no compensation
| to the old company. It seems a new, more pernicious workaround
| to non-competes is where employers are charging their employees
| for training if they leave early. That seems even more hostile
| than a non-compete.
|
| (As a side note, I think non-competes can be quite damaging. In
| the case of the MD relative, he was fired, essentially without
| cause, and his non-compete forced him to be unemployed for a
| year before he was finally able to convince the former employer
| to waive the non-compete. So, there should be very hard
| parameters around non-competes. One thing I think should be
| mandatory is a written buyout amount for any non-compete that
| has some basis in reality. For example, if my MD relative was
| recruited at a cost of $250K with a 2-year non-compete, then he
| could buy himself out at $250K, minus about $20K for each month
| of service he completed. Obviously, I haven't fleshed this idea
| out all the way.)
| idontpost wrote:
| [dead]
| neycoda wrote:
| > So, if your employee receives training that includes your
| trade secrets, those trade secrets will be implicitly used at
| the next job.
|
| That's not a compelling argument for NCCs. It's an argument
| stifling competition, which should not be what NCCs are used
| for.
|
| Every company takes a risk hiring someone that may leave with
| field expertise specifics to the company. Them using that
| expertise elsewhere makes the market healthier and more
| robust because it increases competition.
|
| It's conceivable that NCCs are more anti-competitive than
| protective of the company's trade secrets, at least that's
| how it appears they're being effectively used nowadays.
| lolinder wrote:
| 1. If the doc is worth $220K, why couldn't the practice that
| hired him match the offer to save themselves the $250K they
| spent hiring him? This feels like exactly the kind of wage
| suppression that the FTC is arguing against.
|
| 2. Workers are not serfs to be bought and sold. If the
| acquiring company wants the talent, then they should
| structure the deal in a way that makes the talent _want_ to
| stay, not use legal handcuffs to force them to.
|
| 3. I can see this as an argument for noncompetes being legal
| in some very limited cases, but most jobs don't need this.
| Others have suggested requiring garden leave in lieu of a
| noncompete, and in the few roles where this applies I suspect
| that would work out fine.
| gen220 wrote:
| 1. I think the end-game here is salary-parity, no? If
| Practice A learns that Practice B is taking their employees
| for a marginal salary difference, that forces Practice A to
| improve their compensation package.
|
| But I don't think I fully understand this example. Why does
| it cost $250k to hire an MD? Why does Practice B not need to
| pay this cost, is it because they can skip the vetting
| process since A has already performed it?
|
| 2. If it's an acui-hire, the only way it can be successful
| (in real terms, not just fake "retention" terms) is if the
| acquired team is consenting to the acquisition and
| partnership. If the acquirer can't create a deal (involving
| stock options, work lifestyle guarantees, whatever) that's
| successful in the eyes of their prospective future employees,
| non-competes and non-poaches simply delay the inevitable.
| This is to the detriment of "we the people", because we want
| good people to be productively working on important things.
|
| In my not incredibly informed opinion, NCs for acquihires
| smell lazy and inefficient, because they optimize for the
| wrong metrics (employee retention vs value creation +
| satisfaction). If there's uncertainty about the long-term
| success of the merger, it can be factored into the
| acquisition price.
|
| To me, this implies that outlawing NCs would lead to fewer
| acquihires, on the margin. This seems like it would probably
| be a good thing.
|
| 3. I think there's some "basement" of trade secrets that we
| just need to accept are going to spread around. As a company,
| you have to understand that this bottom 20% of ideas are
| going to osmosis their way out with every departing employee,
| and there's nothing you can do about it other than work to
| retain employees and innovate new ideas.
|
| Similarly to the acquihire issue, NCs simply delay the
| inevitable here, and don't seem to provide much benefit "we
| the people" (or protection to "we the entrepreneurs").
| p_j_w wrote:
| > In the case of the MD relative, he was fired, essentially
| without cause, and his non-compete forced him to be
| unemployed for a year before he was finally able to convince
| the former employer to waive the non-compete.
|
| It seems like an easy and obvious solution that the non-
| compete is automatically null and void if the employee is let
| go for any reason.
| wpietri wrote:
| Unfortunately, that also has easy workarounds, like making
| the employee's life hell until they quit. So you'd also
| need to solve for constructive dismissal:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal
| wpietri wrote:
| I think those are all reasons a company might want it. But
| asking the government to force people to not work requires
| reasons why it's good for society, not just the company.
|
| In the first case, you're talking about a company that wants
| to pay below-market salaries. Why should that be the
| employee's problem?
|
| In the second, there's a case for carrots to make the
| acquired team stay, like the stock options you mention. But
| from a societal perspective, why should the company be able
| to use the courts as a stick if the carrots turn out to be
| insufficient?
|
| In the third, I again get why companies want to treat
| employees like property. But I don't see any societal
| argument for that other than "rich company wants things".
| golemotron wrote:
| > But asking the government to force people to not work
| requires reasons why it's good for society, not just the
| company.
|
| Nobody is forced not to work. That's pure hyperbole.
| danhon wrote:
| In your first case, I'm pretty sure I've seen contracts that
| require the repayment of e.g. relocation costs if the
| employee leaves within x time period.
| sagarm wrote:
| Often a signing bonus also needs to be repaid (pro-rated).
| madcaptenor wrote:
| I was recruited with paid relocation at my current job, and
| I would have had to repay relocation costs if I left within
| a year.
| mminer237 wrote:
| The main time I see them make sense is with very skill-based,
| client-based practices like accounting. You're likely giving
| this hire a lot of clients, and you don't want him leaving in
| two years and taking half the clients with them.
| johngalt wrote:
| Difficult to defend "as practiced". For example trying to
| enforce a non-compete for sandwiches is ridiculous.
|
| There are obvious scenarios in competitive industries where
| losing key people to competitors creates risks for everyone
| involved (not just the losing employer). The problem is when
| employers expect the individual employee to absorb the costs to
| mitigate that risk. Or where the non-competes are applied
| overbroadly. Rather than ban non-competes, it would be better
| to require compensation for the term of the non-compete. This
| prevents frivolous applications of non-competes, which is the
| actual problem.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| The argument is basically that trade secrets violations are
| incredibly hard to detect and pursue. You can't see inside a
| person's brain, and (short of industrial espionage) you can't
| see inside a competitor either. So a person could come work for
| you, gain some knowledge of your trade secrets, and then go get
| a huge offer from a competitor based on that knowledge.
|
| In contrast, it is extremely easy to detect a person's
| employer.
|
| I'm not saying this is a valid or correct argument, I'm saying
| this is one of the arguments.
|
| Another argument (that I know less about) is that there is
| knowledge that is valuable and proprietary, but does not
| actually qualify as "trade secrets" under those laws.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| That's a somewhat reasonable concern. But if it really
| matters to an employer...pay for it. For example, offer a
| security that vests after 5 years or whatever. Saying 'it's
| already built into the compensation' doesn't cut it, because
| then it starts becoming the norm for everyone.
| idontpost wrote:
| [dead]
| wpietri wrote:
| A reasonable counterargument here is that if the improvements
| from misusing trade secrets are that hard to detect, then
| they were perhaps not sufficient to be worth suing over.
| Especially given that the discovery phase of a lawsuit does
| indeed let you see inside a competitor.
| curiousllama wrote:
| This is a solid summary. Another, related argument I've heard
| is that it incentivizes R&D + upskilling. Much of the value
| is "we now have people who can do X", not X itself. Without
| noncompetes, it's a better strategy to try to poach your
| competitor's R&D employees, rather than invest in your own,
| which very quickly leads to less research + upskilling.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| "Trade Secrets" have always sounded like a form of
| protectionism to me, anyway. If you believe software patents
| shouldn't exist, then you should follow the same logic to
| lead to the conclusion that trade secrets shouldn't exist
| either. Both are expressions of business processes that
| shouldn't otherwise be restricted by blanket clauses or gag
| orders.
|
| To me (a non-lawyer and non-legal scholar), an NDA seems more
| appropriately legal than a non-compete agreement, because it
| at least depends on enforcing a specific action rather than
| blanket gagging a person's ability to do an entire job where
| they might not necessarily disclose pertinent information.
|
| It begs the question, where is the line between NDA and non-
| compete? If I have an NDA and then go to a competitor, my
| former employer still has a right to enforce that NDA, but
| how would they ever determine (prove) I violated it? I guess
| this difficulty is where the justification for non-compete
| comes in, but I think the onus should be on the employer.
| It's not fair to the employee if the employer can just
| blanket forbid them from working somewhere because they
| _might_ disclose some information to their new employer in a
| violation of an NDA which the old employer is either too lazy
| or incapable to detect.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| Only thing that comes to mind is a scenario where a sales
| person goes to another company and takes all their sales leads
| with them. This happened at a previous employer, at which time
| they instituted noncompetes for all the salespeople and most of
| the engineering force.
|
| They forgot to have me and several other very senior engineers
| sign the noncompete, which was extremely hilarious to me when I
| went to another company in roughly the same industry and my old
| boss asked me about it...
| flakiness wrote:
| Any stories after that conversation?
| QuercusMax wrote:
| Not really. My new job was in CA which doesn't honor
| noncompetes, so they really didn't have a leg to stand on.
| Mostly just funny.
| henryfjordan wrote:
| It matters more where your old company is than your new
| one. If you work in a state that does allow non-competes
| and move to a new job in CA which does not, your old
| employer can come after you in their/your old home state
| courts where CA law does not matter one bit.
| subradios wrote:
| The issue is that it's very difficult to tell trade secrets
| from expertise in certain fields. In a field that is
| sufficiently niche, like non flagship chip production - a lot
| of architectural ideas are well known across the industry are
| but the implementation details that enable them are trade
| secrets. You can't "un see" these details and IP law is loose
| enough that you could easily reimplement those features or
| products for a competitor without violating IP laws because
| you've seen the idea before and can come up with infinite
| implementations.
| Nomentatus wrote:
| IANAL but I had (kinda unconsciously) assumed that what can
| be protected by trade secrets was broader than what patents
| protect (patents merely implementations - which might be
| broad.) So I'd like to know more; though I wouldn't be
| shocked (now that I think about it) if you're quite right.
|
| In any case, even if the employee refuses to work on a given
| task, that's information. Having to say: "Yeah, I think you
| want somebody else to design that particular part" (implying
| "because they'll be freer to innovate and free to choose the
| optimal solution") is a big fat clue that could attract a lot
| of resources to the design of that part.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| As far as I understand it, the only time trade secrets are
| protected is when they are forced to be revealed in court.
| If for example Zildjan cymbals is in a lawsuit, and
| discovery requires that they divulge their trade secret for
| making cymbals, then the court will issue an NDA for
| everyone that sees it, and seal the records. However, if a
| former Zildjan employee writes a book with the details,
| then there is no protection. Which is why they only limit
| the secret to family members. Fun fact, Sabian uses the
| same secret technique, because it is the same family.
| bob1029 wrote:
| I think NC clauses are pretty bad in general. But, I can't
| shake a weird feeling that crops up from time to time. Anyone
| out there operating _without_ one of these things over their
| heads that feels like maybe they should?
|
| I started out at a tiny company that didn't think their app
| idea would make it as far as it did. It mostly has. Now I am
| looking at the terms of my employment and finding myself
| approximately as encumbered as a McDonalds employee on their
| first day.
|
| Some of the things I know could be leveraged to turn our
| biggest competitor into an unstoppable explosion in very little
| time. I'd never _actually_ do this (there are always higher-
| order effects w / betrayal), but I do think I could use this
| concern as part of my salary re-negotiation this year.
|
| Equity and other forms of compensation serve as a very powerful
| carrot to abate this temptation. Carrots don't always work
| though. You usually need some kind of stick at some level.
| thwayunion wrote:
| IMO the link should be changed to the FTC's press release, which
| has no paywall and provides a better summary:
| https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/...
|
| You can read the proposed rule and the full notice and factsheet
| here: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/federal-register-
| no...
|
| Of note, an FTC commissioner (Trump appointee, so a minority
| voice in the executive atm) released a dissenting statement
| outlining the strategy that will be used to defeat the proposed
| rule:
| https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/p201000noncompe...
| (warning: pdf). In her dissent, she speaks eloquently about how
| darn important noncompetes are to Business and Competition, and
| "encourage[s] all interested parties to respond fully to all
| parts of the NPRM's solicitation of public comments."
|
| Which, well... I'll also encourage all interested parties to
| respond fully to all parts of the NPRM's solicitation of public
| comments! You can do so at regulations.gov
| twobitshifter wrote:
| >The proposed rule would generally not apply to other types of
| employment restrictions, like non-disclosure agreements.
| However, other types of employment restrictions could be
| subject to the rule if they are so broad in scope that they
| function as noncompetes.
|
| Do we think it would apply to non-solicitation clauses?
| bcaine wrote:
| Do you know how to publicly comment? I couldn't find a way on
| the press release or their website.
| cashsterling wrote:
| Whether or not this goes through, I think a lot of folks on HN
| should consider refusing to sign non-compete agreements...
| especially if you are a subject matter expert in your field of
| work.
|
| If a employer wants you to sign a non-compete it should cost them
| something (extra salary, extra signing bonus, pay for a period of
| time after you leave the company, etc.). You shouldn't just give
| away your right to work for nothing.
|
| I stopped signing non-competes a number of years ago on the basis
| that I'm hired for my expertise and know-how and, as such, "I
| bring everything to table" in my domain of expertise (not my
| company or they wouldn't have needed me)... it is my
| experience,knowledge and capability and I should be able to do
| whatever the hell I want with it, with the exception of stuff
| specifically covered by trade secret protections, classification,
| etc.
| kepler1 wrote:
| For some reason I jumped to hoping the title also implied that
| union-only anti-compete clauses in government contracting were
| also banned. But that was too optimistic.
| monksy wrote:
| Non-competes do not protect an organization against IP theft or
| trade sceret dissemination. Those are protected by NDAs,
| confidentiality agreements, copyrights, patents, etc.
|
| If you see someone making a claim that it's to protect company
| secrets, that is misinformation used to justify NCs. Please
| inform them otherwise.
|
| Non-competes limit where your staff can go to. Without proper
| compensation for the time period in which they apply for, they're
| a very one sided (and in some cases illegal [NCs are legal in IL
| unless they assert an economic hardship]) way to prevent
| employees leaving. The claims for them is "training cost is
| expensive and it's to limit staff from training at one company
| and leaving" (which as we know.. companies generally don't do
| training in house)
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Uncompensated non-compete clauses have been pretty much
| unenforceable anyway given the cost of enforcement and the actual
| value to the enforcer (usually less than 6 figures). It's a good
| step to ban these given that all they do is make people afraid to
| work somewhere else.
|
| Compensated non-competes are a totally different story, and
| probably better to hold on to.
| thwayunion wrote:
| This has been my experience. One employer tried. With the help
| of a labor attorney, I told them that if they wanted to enforce
| the clause then I would voluntarily withdraw my acceptance of a
| new job offer and then avail myself of the courts.
|
| Burned a bridge, of course, but it took them about 20 minutes
| to decide I wasn't worth the hassle.
| projectazorian wrote:
| Lovely, but seems unlikely to make it past the current iteration
| of the Supreme Court.
| All4All wrote:
| I agree with the notion of ridding noncompetes entirely. Former
| employers should be limited to bringing cases against former
| employees who actually take something of legal value-i.e. trade
| secret misappropriation claims which require a higher standard of
| proof, as opposed to the broad restrictions that noncompetes
| impose on employees.
| batmaniam wrote:
| If businesses think their employees are so valuable that blocking
| them from working for a competitor is necessary... then how about
| just giving them incentives to stay? I don't know, maybe a huge
| bonus, or above-average salary adjustments against the
| competitor, etc? Or fix the toxic work environment so that
| they'll actually want to stay?
|
| Otherwise too bad, the business created unfavorable conditions
| for their employees, so workers should have every right to leave
| and work for anyone else, including competitors. Either employees
| are that valuable or they're not, can't have your cake and eat it
| too, Mr. Big Boss.
| solomatov wrote:
| If anyone wants to read the rule as written by FTC, could do it
| here: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/federal-register-
| no...
| steelframe wrote:
| When I was interviewing last year, I cut off an interview loop
| with a company primarily because I don't reside in California and
| their NDA was, "Anything you say, anything we say, forever."
| Since I was also interviewing with one of their direct
| competitors that I really preferred, I didn't want to put myself
| anywhere near a legal situation where they might try to mess
| things up for my career.
|
| They freaked out when I told them I didn't want to complete the
| interview loop because apparently I had passed their initial
| "weeder" interview and they were getting really excited about the
| possibility of me joining. But I would have had to sign that
| "everything, forever" NDA to keep going, and they weren't willing
| to go back to legal or do anything to change it, so that was
| that.
|
| I personally know several people in my state who had their
| careers impacted due to threats from former employers over an
| NDA, so I really don't feel like that was an overreaction on my
| end. And I'm super-happy where I ended up.
|
| I just wanted to provide a data point on how NDAs that go
| overboard ("everything, forever") can cut both ways.
| DennisP wrote:
| I quit a job I'd been at for well over a decade, because the
| company's new owner was making everyone sign noncompete, non-
| disparagement, and intellectual property contracts. They would
| own everything I invented while employed with them, even if I
| did it at home on my own time, if in their opinion it had
| anything to do with their business. I checked with a lawyer
| first, who said it was probably all enforceable in my state.
| bumby wrote:
| > _I personally know several people in my state who had their
| careers impacted due to threats from former employers over an
| NDA_
|
| I'm curious, was there any actual legal action or was it just
| the threat? I'm not dismissing the fact that a threat can
| create enough risk to make someone change their behavior, but
| I've also heard these NDAs are tough to legally enforce. Of
| course, nobody wants to be the one calling their bluff only to
| find out it wasn't an idle threat.
| steelframe wrote:
| > I'm curious, was there any actual legal action or was it
| just the threat?
|
| One particular instance that stands out in my mind was for
| someone who I saw hired into the company for a specific role
| with a certain scope. The previous company's HR then sent a
| letter to the new company's HR telling them about the
| employee's obligations under the NDA. The new company's
| management decided the prospect of a legal issue was too much
| a hassle, so they reassigned the new hire to a different role
| outside their direct area of expertise and with a smaller
| scope for a year.
|
| AFAIK, there was never really an opportunity for the employee
| to say, "No, don't do that, I'll shoulder any legal
| responsibility if the previous company decides to get nasty
| about this." The simple "it would be a shame if something
| were to happen" letter between HR departments was all it took
| to put the worker in a career tarpit for a year.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Note that while an unqualified "eveything ever" employment NDA
| is expressly illegal in California [0], California is not _as_
| hostile to NDAs and non-disparagement agreements as it is to
| post-employment noncompetes.
|
| [0]
| https://www.employmentlawwatch.com/2021/10/articles/employme...
| tejohnso wrote:
| Wouldn't they be making their NDA useless by having such a
| broad scope applied? I thought your contract had to be somewhat
| sensible for it to stand up in court.
| rubyfan wrote:
| This is probably a sign that other things outside of NDAs would
| ultimately be problematic there.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Good for you, but the article is about non-competes, not NDAs.
| humanistbot wrote:
| The thing that makes me so angry is how lightly so many people
| treat these legally binding contracts.
|
| I showed up to a meetup at some tech company's offices. After
| putting in my name, I was shown a contract on a small tablet
| and was expected to click next and sign with my finger. I have
| normal vision and couldn't read it without putting it right in
| front of my eyeball. I don't sign anything without reading. I
| asked if they had a printed copy so I wasn't holding up the
| entire line.
|
| Their response? "Oh, that's just all standard legal stuff,
| don't worry about it."
|
| Easy to say when your lawyers wrote it. It turned out to
| include both a non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreement.
| I did not attend that meetup.
| bbarnett wrote:
| _Their response? "Oh, that's just all standard legal stuff,
| don't worry about it."_
|
| I'm a Canuck, so centuries of legal, common law separation
| here...
|
| But if someone misrepresents what a contract is, and even
| more so applies pressure to sign, it's meaningless.
|
| My understanding is that this goes back to "make your mark"
| and lower levels of literacy, and in modern times, that
| legalese is gibberish to many, thus misrepresenting what
| you're signing can effect enforcement/validity.
|
| It's very stupid for them to brush it off like that.
|
| (I wouldn't have signed either, and have walked from jobs and
| contracts over absurd NDAs. One client actually wanted me to
| sign a forever NDA, but 1/2 way through the contract! Wtf?!
| Negotiate that at contract sign, not months later!)
| humanistbot wrote:
| We do have what we call "fraudulent misrepresentation" in
| the US. It could give me grounds to seek damages or
| invalidation of certain misrepresented provisions, but
| doesn't automatically make the contract meaningless over
| here. The two problems are specificity and proof, both of
| which require more consent from the receptionist than they
| are probably willing to go along with.
|
| It would be fraud to misrepresent a material fact at time
| of signing, such as the quality of goods or, say, if a loan
| officer says that interest is fixed-rate, when the contract
| says it is variable-rate. But for my case, what does
| "standard legal stuff" actually mean? I'd argue it is
| actually pretty standard for a Bay Area tech company. What
| does "don't worry about it" actually mean? If I asked the
| receptionist to explain more or "does this include a non-
| disparagement agreement?", I doubt they would have said
| anything.
|
| For proof, I was in California, which is a two party
| consent jurisdiction for recording. So I could have pulled
| out my phone and said "I'd like your permission to record
| what you just told me about the contract. Can you please
| state your name, position at Company X, and what you just
| told me about it being all standard legal stuff?" If I was
| that receptionist, I'd probably call security.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| Shouldn't this invalidate basically every software
| EULA/TOS?
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| How often do EULA/TOS type documents actually get tested
| in court?
|
| I had a prof in university who was pretty sure majority
| of them wouldn't stand up to an actual legal case.
| jackson1442 wrote:
| Yep. Got multiple eyerolls when I was checking in to a
| testing center for a certification when I actually stopped to
| read the full page of rules presented to me before I signed
| it.
|
| Funny enough, they didn't even follow the rules themselves.
| The "end test" protocol was to raise your hand in the testing
| room and be escorted out, I sat there for a few minutes then
| just walked out myself and apparently that's what I was
| supposed to do.
| mcv wrote:
| Contracts that restrict you, whether non-compete, NDA or
| otherwise, should be as narrow as possible and limited to a
| reasonable time. Overly broad restrictions are stupid,
| dangerous, and unnecessary.
|
| I had quite a bit of discussion about this for my current
| project. It had two non-competes; one for the client and one
| for the intermediary, and the important one, the one by the
| client, sounded very broad and vague, and I wanted explicit and
| in writing how broad they meant it. (Turned out to be only
| about a handful of their direct competitors.)
| nerpderp82 wrote:
| It is legally lazy of them to throw that in there and good for
| you to stand your ground.
|
| Make them sleep in the bed they make!
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Smart choice. If they are trying to get you to sign an NDA
| before even being offered a job then they better be offering
| some kind of amazing package. I've seen recruiter companies try
| to do the same just to interview.
| rnk wrote:
| Everyone always thinks their non-compete is good for you and
| the industry, don't worry about it. They are all bs. I once
| had a job offer at a startup in seattle where the noncompete
| said something along the lines of you can't ever say anything
| about bill gates, who was one of the investors (it seemed
| extremely broad). I said fuck that, you aren't going to
| prevent me from making my own political comments about him,
| whatever they are. I think they wanted to limit people from
| saying things about his personal family or something. Anyway,
| I wasted some money on my own lawyer who negotiated a much
| stricter thing with them. Just say no to these.
| asdff wrote:
| Noncompetes are a classic example of employers abusing their
| position and their ability to lobby for laws such as these in the
| first place, to benefit their bottom line at the expense of their
| employees.
|
| If you had some sensitive information that an employee knows
| about and you are worried about losing them, why not just pay
| them more to stay on then, versus making them absolutely
| unmarketable in the workplace because all their relevant skills
| and experiences are illegal to be used again? What are you even
| expected to do in that case then? Get a job at McDonalds until
| the noncompete expires and you can actually send your resume out
| gain?
| grumple wrote:
| This is obviously great for workers and competition. It's
| actually good for companies too, even if they are too short
| sighted to realize it. See: silicon valley.
| thwayunion wrote:
| What you're missing is that most wealthy decision makers have
| highly concentrated holdings, so a general raise in national
| wealth doesn't necessarily provide them with a net benefit.
|
| Ending non-competes would be good for GDP growth and the US
| economy writ large. But it's not necessarily for any particular
| company. See: all the businesses killed off by silicon valley.
|
| Similar to how rent collection is a massive drag on economic
| productivity but fixing the housing crisis would be terrible
| for certain rent extractors in particular.
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| Doesn't this diminish the value of a startup, say, if the buyer
| hands the principals a mountain of cash in a buyout then the
| principals use that cash to build in the same industry / market
| the startup they would have if they had all that cash in the
| first place? Without having the non-compete with the principals,
| who would even want to buy your startup?
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| I doubt the rule would apply in that case because that isn't a
| labor contract, it's a contract to sell a business.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| I don't know if you've noticed, but there's this little state
| "California" that gets a lot of press in the start-up scene.
| Non-competes are basically illegal there, and it doesn't seem
| to have hampered either the start-ups, nor the build up of
| megacorporations who buy them.
| acd wrote:
| I suggest we also implement open source peer reviewed employment
| contracts.
|
| Almost always in the end of the recruitment process are you
| showed the emploment contract fine print.
|
| Been through a non complete clause myself I highly recommend
| against it. Your skill and work experiance is the most valluable
| asset to a future employer. Non compete clauses prevent you from
| seeking jobs in a similar field.
| Ethan_Mick wrote:
| Good.
|
| I've seen over and over this harm friends in frustrating ways.
| Tech aside, non-competes in other industries are completely
| insane. My wife is an optometrist and all local shops have
| draconic noncompetes you are forced to sign. If you leave the
| shop you can't work within 30 miles (or more!) of that location.
|
| I've had friends move entire cities just so they can get out of a
| terrible work situation. Worse, I've had friends stay in bad
| situations because their noncomplete would force them to move or
| drive way too far for work.
|
| And since everyone does it, they're resigned to "it's just the
| way it is" and nobody wants to risk being sued.
| [deleted]
| brightball wrote:
| IMO the primary concern at an office like that is having access
| to patient data and then enticing them to go elsewhere. If the
| person wants to go work elsewhere, totally fine. The concern is
| trying to take customers or other staff with them.
|
| I know somebody that happened to. Company opened a branch
| office and one of the senior staff rented an office around the
| corner, took half the staff and patients. Stuck them with multi
| year lease agreements, after the business already bore the
| entire startup cost of paying people while building up a
| patient load, marketing, etc.
|
| I understand the opposition to draconian non-competes but
| there's a flip side of this to protect an investment that is
| very valid.
| Retric wrote:
| Protecting trade secrets and customer/client lists etc don't
| require non competes.
|
| What they are generally used for is to limit competition or
| depress wages both of which are economically harmful.
| ssharp wrote:
| There are usually non-solicitation clauses as well that
| prevent you from actively recruiting former co-workers and
| clients/customers. That's different than a non-compete.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Which should also be unenforceable. Freedom of association
| is in the Constitution.
| [deleted]
| bumby wrote:
| > _If you leave the shop you can 't work within 30 miles_
|
| I know one person who worked in sales and was banned from
| selling in an entire region of the country. She was completely
| open about this when being recruited by another employer. That
| new employer appeared completely willing to work around the
| non-compete clause to bring her onboard.
|
| That was, until she was actually hired and she was almost
| immediately pressured to sell throughout the forbidden area.
| When she said she was willing to, but only if the new employer
| would sign an agreement to cover any of her associated legal
| fees, they eventually backed off on the demands.
|
| These situations always seem to push the risk to the employee
| to the benefit of the employer.
| skeletal88 wrote:
| In normal countries these are only valid when the previous
| employer pays for the time you are not allowed to work.
|
| If I work at a bank as a developer then I can go straight to
| the next one, if the previous employer doesn't keep paying me a
| compensation for not working at the next bank.
|
| Not being able to 'in sales' as sibling commenter says here is
| just insane, and should not hold in court anywhere.
| bickfordb wrote:
| Hopefully this will spur action to do this for all other
| contracts of adhesion that consumers, workers often face.
| drewda wrote:
| As the saying goes, California is the United States... just 30
| years in the future.
|
| (Note that often this is a good pattern, but not always!)
| yardie wrote:
| If thats true the rest of the US is going to be on fire, have
| an abundance of homeless, and high speed rail still won't
| happen.
| Fargren wrote:
| Those seem like reasonable predictions.
| drewda wrote:
| Perhaps.
|
| But the relevant point here is that California has long had
| state law banning most forms of non-compete clauses in
| employment contracts. It's considered to be one of the
| strengths of Silicon Valley and other California industries
| -- talent can move from established company to established
| company, or established company to startup.
| Communitivity wrote:
| I had a company that had a very vague noncompete. As worded it
| could be 'Anything, everywhere'. I asked about it and was told
| 'Yeah,but we never enforce that.' I wanted to work for the
| company, but that was a full stop. I hired a lawyer a friend
| recommended. He went over it and confirmed I should be concerned
| if I did anything outside of work that could create IP that I
| might want to sell later. He drafted some new language that
| confined the noncompete for me to industry and specific region
| for 1 year only, that everything I working on outside of work and
| on my own resources outside of that industry was mine, as well as
| some set-asides that clearly noted work I had been working on
| before coming on and we're my own work. It cost me a little under
| $1k
|
| If you are going for a job that pays $100k or more, get a lawyer
| (ideally a lawyer in your sector) to look over your employment
| contract, NDA, Non-compete, etc. It is worth every penny, in my
| opinion.
| xyzelement wrote:
| Non competes are often necessary in the most interesting jobs. A
| few years ago I took a job at a hedge fund with a 2 year
| noncompete. I took a calculated risk doing so.
|
| In the 2 years I worked in the fund, I learned a tremendous
| amount thanks to being exposed to the "secret sauce" which would
| have been really damaging for me to take to a competitor.
|
| After I left the fund, I took the 2 year non-compete (ie: don't
| work in another fund) to explore other industries, ended up in a
| FAANG and quite happy.
|
| Point being, as an adult I weighed the risk of the non competes
| vs the opportunity of the role and made a decision. I am not sure
| how this kind of role would work in a world of no non-competes
| but I suspect it would be suboptimal for everyone.
|
| The bottom line is, a non compete is not something that springs
| on you. It's something you evaluated in context and chose, as a
| professional. You don't have to take the job.
| ipaddr wrote:
| After you took the FAANG job did you still receive money for
| the non-compete?
| xyzelement wrote:
| The way it worked (in my case at least) is that as part of my
| signing on with the fund, I consented to their ability to
| block my employment with anyone for 2 years post departure
| (technically, they could have blocked the FAANG job but
| there'd be no reason to - and similarly they could have
| approved a job in finance if it was sufficiently removed from
| what I was doing.)
|
| There was no "money for the non-compete" involved, other than
| perhaps the premium baked into my compensation to begin with
| to make the deal attractive.
| mebiles wrote:
| yeah if you've switched sectors then you clearly did not get
| the "secret sauce" lol
| greatpostman wrote:
| Markets would be better and more efficient with that
| information public. Also, no need for a few people to rack up
| billions by holding secrets
|
| Think about sota deep learning models. Much better that
| everyone knows about hot chat gpt works.
| xyzelement wrote:
| Sure, and when you invest millions into developing the
| financial models (or GPT-like models) - you are welcome to
| release them into the public domain if you wish.
|
| However you don't get to dictate what the people who have
| _actually_ invested the resources get to do with them,
| including what conditions they attach to who can be exposed
| to it (a la the non-compete). As an adult, I retain the
| option to not take the job with the non-compete.
| ThrowawayIP wrote:
| Non-Competes are absolutely sprung on employees and I am an
| example of that. The company I worked for was acquired and the
| 2 year non-competes were high-pressure "Sign it or you're
| fired" conversations. So I sit at the same desk, doing the same
| work, for the same compensation and can now not take another
| job with anyone doing work in my field.
| jeremydeanlakey wrote:
| > The bottom line is, a non compete is not something that
| springs on you.
|
| It's pretty standard now for employers to spring on you a
| previously-unmentioned non-compete clause at the time that
| you're onboarding. I've learned to ask for it before accepting
| an offer but I don't think most employees know to do that.
|
| I'm a capitalist and I think non-competes have a very valid
| purpose in a limited set of circumstances. But the ubiquitous
| use right now is to make it harder for employees to leave.
| xyzelement wrote:
| I can get behind that. Non-competes between two consenting
| adults - great. If presentations are shady and opaque, that's
| a different story and a problem (and I would say that about
| any attribute of the employment contract that isn't easy to
| understand upfront)
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > I am not sure how this kind of role would work in a world of
| no non-competes but I suspect it would be suboptimal for
| everyone.
|
| In your example, non competes seem to be optimal for the hedge
| fund investors, but I fail to see how it was optimal for
| everyone.
|
| California has been pumping out quite a stream of "interesting
| jobs" and interesting businesses in a world of no non competes.
| xyzelement wrote:
| //but I fail to see how it was optimal for everyone.
|
| It was also optimal for _me as the employee_ because the fund
| could (a) hire me and (b) structure my role in a way that I
| could quickly learn and make impact which (c) enabled me to
| earn what I want.
|
| Without the non-compete, the role/hire would not have been
| possible and would have to be structured in some less optimal
| way.
|
| Like I said, if I didn't think this role was even w the non
| compete I'd have done something else.
| dzader wrote:
| I don't know what the role was but I'm 100% sure that's not
| true at all. there are 0 roles that would disappear if non
| competes became illegal. 0
| wewtyflakes wrote:
| The onboarding was optimal for you, having the non-compete
| was not optimal for you. The ideal situation would be to
| have that great onboarding experience while also not having
| a non-compete, something that companies in California do
| all the time.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Banning noncompetes would be an awesome policy for economic
| growth and dynamism. It's pro-freedom in the useful sense of the
| word. It's also incredibly pro-worker.
|
| Sometimes you get a win-win-win idea.
| manicennui wrote:
| Unfortunately the "loser" in this situation is the only group
| that politicians really care about.
| r00fus wrote:
| How did the supposed captured government agency (FTC) happen
| to even propose this? Is it a) FTC is not captured b)
| proposal that goes nowhere (ie, Lucy with the football
| scenario) or c) perhaps that "group politicians really care
| about" realize the gains may be worth the cost ?
| lostdog wrote:
| The FTC is a bit less captured currently because of its
| current head.
| willcipriano wrote:
| If this is accomplished I'll believe you.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| d) The FTC is not a monolith: it's a large group composed
| of a great many people, who have varying levels of loyalty
| to the organisation's purported _raison d 'etre_.
| withinboredom wrote:
| The only loser is the company with the best _whatever_ while
| all their competitors have a shot at bidding for employees
| who know the _whatever_. It tremendously levels the entire
| playing field.
| asah wrote:
| This is a huge deal for improving US competitiveness worldwide,
| can't wait for the comments period to open.
|
| This is won't affect early stage startups much: startups have
| limited negotiating power and non-competes are a <blink> tag:
| it's such a bad look, entrepreneurs are quickly pulled aside by
| advisors, lawyers, etc.
|
| This might affect California, which used them (their ban) to
| compete with other states. It's a soft thing along with sunshine,
| funding (easier, faster, better terms) and the talent pool
| (larger, better connected).
|
| I've been affected by non-competes all my career and it was part
| of my decision to move from New York to California - the software
| industry was simply too volatile to attach yourself to one
| employer. As I graduated, I had companies recruiting me, it was
| impossible to pick. Decades years later, I have enough power (and
| savvy) to cross-out NCAs from contracts along with overly
| prescriptive SOWs, toothless financial promises, etc. But kids,
| if you're reading this, the negotiation never ends if you want to
| get paid and earn a living.
| [deleted]
| brohoolio wrote:
| I'm surprised it's taken so long. Companies have abused this
| practice to an absurd degree. Got a job at a sandwich shop? I
| guess you are prohibited from getting a different job down the
| street based on the agreement you signed at the beginning of your
| employment.
| runevault wrote:
| I know here in Colorado they recently passed a law that under a
| certain pay you cannot be made to sign a noncompete. However it
| was only like $110k so wasn't going to help many developers.
| JJMcJ wrote:
| I think the sandwich shop and similar working class non-
| competes is what finally pushed this into happening.
| krupan wrote:
| When I want to leave a company and look for a new job, I hate
| non-competes.
|
| When I want to stay at a company and a good co-worker quits to go
| work for a competitor, I love non-competes.
|
| When I want to stay at a company and a toxic co-worker quits to
| go work for a competitor I cheer that a non-compete did not block
| that move. And yes, I've been in this situation and the toxic
| employee was CEO of the start-up. I'm pretty sure the competing
| start-up he went to failed because he went there. Smartest move
| the start-up I was at ever made to let him go there.
|
| I think the best solution is for companies to make damn sure that
| good employees don't want to leave to work for a competitor,
| instead of making them sign a non-compete, especially before you
| really know if they are toxic or not.
| worik wrote:
| Part of the problem, IMO, is the idea that rules can take the
| place of integrity.
|
| Rules are useful. But they are useful for "other people". We all
| act with integrity because we are decent people, not because we
| will be punished if we do not
| Zigurd wrote:
| It's a way of establishing an "intellectual property" claim
| inside your skull. I put that in quotes because a limited term
| government grant of monopoly, which is what patents and
| copyrights actually are, are not "property." There is no property
| right in that grant of a monopoly. Congress could reset the term
| of patents and copyrights at any moment, on any terms. That's a
| much weaker thing than actual property rights.
| retrac wrote:
| > Congress could reset the term of patents and copyrights at
| any moment, on any terms. That's a much weaker thing than
| actual property rights.
|
| Property comes in many forms. There's real estate, and movable
| property, in the most basic sense of property. But there is
| also intangible property. You can own a licence for use of part
| of the radio spectrum in a region. This is a valuable thing and
| you can sell it or buy it from another licensee. Radio
| regulation is basically all created by government legislation,
| and it could probably be changed at any moment, too. There are
| also financial assets, such as shares or bonds. Corporations
| themselves are legal fictions, and might be modified by
| legislation, with associated impacts on the property.
|
| I strictly avoid the term "intellectual property" myself.
| Because conflating all these senses of property is highly
| confusing. A car is not a steel mill, which is not a patent,
| which is not a taxi licence, which is not a share in a
| corporation, which is not land. We need to carefully
| distinguish these, in most cases. But in a political science
| sense, they are property: legally recognized rights, usually
| transferrable, that claim exclusivity to something, tangible or
| intangible.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Congress could reset the term of patents and copyrights at
| any moment, on any terms. That 's not how actual property
| rights work._
|
| Isn't it?
| Zigurd wrote:
| No. A bill setting patent or copyright terms to less than
| what they are now is constitutional. Some might argue the
| opposite side of that, but I don't think anyone can deny the
| Framers were wary of the kinds of monopolies monarchs
| granted, much less did they think a patent is property.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| My point is all ownership is a legal concept. Congress can
| abridge many property rights, including real estate, and
| the only thing keeping them from going further is the
| custom enshrined in our Constitution.
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| That's the point of the Second Amendment. If you try to
| take my property, I will shoot you.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _you try to take my property, I will shoot you_
|
| Now map this attitude to intellectual property and you
| see the problem.
| Zigurd wrote:
| It's more than "custom." Since we have judicial review,
| courts can strike down an unconstitutional taking of
| property. It goes back to WWKGD? ("What would King George
| do?") ...and doing the opposite. So we have
| constitutional protections against seizing private
| property, but arbitrary terms, except they must be
| limited terms, for grants of monopoly.
|
| Not perfectly observed of course. The Mouse always
| stretches the definition of "limited term." But the
| intent is there for anyone to see.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _more than "custom." Since we have judicial review,
| courts can strike down an unconstitutional taking of
| property_
|
| The custom cited _is_ the power of the Constitution. The
| point is all property is an invented construct.
|
| This isn't some neo-Marxist hot take. It's reflecting
| that IP is simply a novel form of _e.g._ drawing lines on
| a map and calling them deeds. One is older and more
| precedented. That's a huge advantage. But neither is more
| "fake" than the other.
| Zigurd wrote:
| That's all true. Likewise I am just pointing out the
| underlying reasons why property deeds get more protection
| than stuff that the people writing the constitution
| thought was less worthy of protection.
|
| Where we stand now is that courts are less likely to say
| that congress has no right to shorten patent and
| copyright terms, than to allow congress to take land
| without compensation based on market value.
|
| And, in the case of non-competes, that may say even
| existing contracts cannot lay a proprietary claim to
| something between your ears.
| Communitivity wrote:
| Noncompetes in any form should be illegal, in my opinion. They
| are a form of intellectual slavery - saying the company owns my
| mind and my mental work products.
| edwnj wrote:
| [dead]
| schnable wrote:
| Nice to see the Biden admin continuing the fight for upper
| middle-class professionals.
| endisneigh wrote:
| I disagree with banning noncompetes. The issue IMO isn't
| noncompetes, it's the fact that an employer doesn't have to pay.
|
| The rule should be that they can make you not compete, but you
| must be compensated monthly at your salary level prior to
| departure.
|
| A non compete without having to pay is having your cake and
| eating it to so to speak.
| netheril96 wrote:
| I disagree. The law can only mandate salaries during noncompete
| periods. It cannot mandate bonuses or stock grants, both of
| which can be significant.
|
| And as an employee, I prefer that noncompete has no effect.
| Even if I were paid during noncompete period, I would be
| outcompeted by other people who are working rather than being
| idle. It would set my career back.
| r00fus wrote:
| Would you be ok if it was total compensation (averaged over a
| reasonable period) and not salary?
| CJefferson wrote:
| The problem there is people often leave one job for a job
| which might pay 2x, 5x, or even more.
|
| How about if you get another job offer, your original
| employer has to either "buy you out" of the new job offer,
| or you allowed to take it?
| ericpruitt wrote:
| That seems ripe for exploitation. Someone could setup a
| company that effectively does nothing but offer to hire
| people for exorbitant rates.
| [deleted]
| r00fus wrote:
| This sounds great (as a worker).
|
| I could imagine it poses some risk of gaming the system
| (ie, have your friends startup fake hire you at 2/5x and
| use that to bypass noncompete or get a huge raise) - but
| then the company's out is to not enforce their noncompete
| (which is essentially what CA enforces) so I think it's a
| nice "velvet handcuffs" option for employers.
| endisneigh wrote:
| My fear around banning is that if an employer were willing to
| buy you out but non competes are banned the only real option
| they have would be to not hire you, no?
| richbell wrote:
| > The rule should be that they can make you not compete, but
| you must be compensated monthly at your salary level prior to
| departure.
|
| > A non compete without having to pay is having your cake and
| eating it to so to speak.
|
| Agreed. Noncompetes and NDAs have become standard boilerplate
| in job contracts despite being inappropriate in the vast
| majority of cases. In my opinion, it's an intimidation used by
| employers against employees: "we don't actually enforce this,
| unless you do things like leave us a negative review on
| GlassDoor".
|
| Despite being unenforceable where I live, I know several people
| who have been threatened by their ex-employers. Even if such
| legal action is frivolous, most people don't have the time or
| money to spare fight it off, and employers know this. This
| relates back to the bargening inequality mentioned in another
| thread.
| foobiekr wrote:
| Be careful what you wish for, there are significant non-salary
| benefits (stock ESPP and RSUs, healthcare subsidy, etc.) that
| matter a lot. These employers would just restructure
| compensation to effectively recreate low-cost non-competes.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Not a big deal, could just say income as reported on your W2,
| then.
|
| Not to mention employers already enforce non competes and
| don't pay anything.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.ph/PWeyx
| Nomentatus wrote:
| It's interesting to consider Marx's viewpoint here, namely that
| businesses are always, even during good times, in a rigorous
| exploitation contest for the right to stay in business; and so
| only the businesses that use every possible means of exploiting
| their workers to the max, and thus piling up the biggest heap of
| surplus value as liquid assets; will be able to draw on pile that
| long enough to survive severe economic downturns (thus selecting
| for max exploitation over the longer run.) (Really a dollar
| auction, not that he used that phrase.) This seems esp poignant,
| and accurate, re low-wage and low-skill workers having to sign
| non-compete clauses. (Downturns were both more frequent and more
| severe in Marx's day.)
|
| However I think Marx would be confounded by the Justice
| Department fully pushing this initiative, if indeed it does;
| since he believed the elites had an iron grip on democracies that
| was not going to be shaken. He would have predicted a far higher
| GINI than the (kinda high) one we have. More like Russia's, at
| least.
|
| I may be selling him short though, he might view the Justice Dept
| action as mostly theatre; allowing other forms of exploitation to
| proceed apace and only addressing abusive clauses that weren't
| being enforced anyway; and the expansion of skilled and better-
| paid work in our day as only an apparent exception to his views.
| flerchin wrote:
| We have various "professional services" folks at my fortune 500,
| essentially staff aug. Some of those folks I'd like to convert,
| but there's a non-compete. I wonder if that goes away now? (non
| California)
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| Might want to double check the text of the noncompete. I've
| never worked anywhere that forbade converting. Rather, it was
| to stop permatemps from hopping vendors when they inevitably
| found out some of them pay more for the same work, or from
| offering the client the same services and entering into
| competition with the vendor.
| TSiege wrote:
| This is a bigger deal then the title suggests since it appears it
| would be retroactive and nullify existing non competes
|
| > The commission's proposal appears to address this issue by
| requiring employers to withdraw existing noncompetes and to
| inform workers that they no longer apply. The proposal would also
| make it illegal for an employer to enter into a noncompete with a
| worker or to try to do so, or to suggest that a worker is bound
| by a noncompete when he or she is not.
|
| This is very unclear to me, and seemingly experts, if the FTC has
| this power, but it would be very far reaching if it were to go
| into effect. Given the hostility of the current Supreme Court to
| federal agencies, the pessimist in me says that this would be
| challenged by an employer go all the way to the supreme court and
| be used by them to dramatically limit the power of FTC
| cataphract wrote:
| > Given the hostility of the current Supreme Court to federal
| agencies, the pessimist in me says that this would be
| challenged by an employer go all the way to the supreme court
| and be used by them to dramatically limit the power of FTC
|
| More likely, in the short term it will be challenged in
| individual arbitration and we'll never hear about it.
| gnopgnip wrote:
| That isn't how it works with non competes. The old employer
| threatens to sue the new employer unless they fire you.
| TSiege wrote:
| I'm not sure that would not be possible given what the
| article describes. This regulation would retroactively
| nullify them and bar companies from trying to enact anything
| like a non compete period
| Zigurd wrote:
| It isn't too unusual for humans to be protected from entering
| into unjust contracts.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _It isn 't too unusual for humans to be protected from
| entering into unjust contracts._
|
| Perhaps, but it is unusual for humans to be aware that
| they're protected from such.
| LanceH wrote:
| > Given the hostility of the current Supreme Court to federal
| agencies
|
| Maybe it's overreach by federal agencies when they create their
| own law.
|
| There is a distinction between authorizing an agency to figure
| out how to get something done and letting one make new law.
|
| Dramatically limiting the power of agencies to make up their
| own new laws seems like a good thing.
| TSiege wrote:
| This would not be a law, and an agency cannot issue laws as
| it goes directly against the constitution. This would be a
| regulation, which is specifically the purpose of Federal
| Agencies. It is onerous, slow, and ineffective to have
| congress pass small laws for every little thing that needs to
| be regulated. Instead Congress creates agencies with a
| charter defining the scope of what they have purview over,
| and the agency then creates regulations on what it deems fit.
| These can be challenged in federal court, which is
| specifically what I've been mentioning
| mywittyname wrote:
| Why shouldn't Congress be able to delegate powers? Congress
| writes the laws and it seems appropriate that they should be
| able to write a law that allows a group they delegate to
| write and enforce regulations on their behalf. Especially
| when the scope of such laws is so narrowly and explicitly
| defined.
|
| Do you really expect Congresspeople to have the educational
| background necessary to regulate agricultural products,
| automobile emissions, and how medical testing is conducted?
| Do you really want AoC or MTG deciding which medicine you can
| take? Remember the ACA/Obamacare debacle? Without agencies,
| the entire government becomes a series of "let's pass the
| bill to see what's in it" laws.
|
| The whole point of delegation is that experts make the
| important decisions, and Congress approves a leader for the
| department that is accountable to them for oversight.
| Requiring Congress to bring every decision an agency makes to
| the floor for a discussion and vote is akin to having the
| Board of Directors of a company approve and modify every PR
| it Github.
| notch656c wrote:
| Unelected entities should not be writing "regulations"
| (that have the power of law). Particularly when they both
| write the "regulation" and enforce it with police powers,
| such as the ATF, creating a dangerous fusion of the
| separated powers.
| salawat wrote:
| Yes, I do expect Congress to either build up that
| expertise, or hire their own staff yo do the footwork for
| them. The Library of Congress, in point of fact, was
| established to fulfill that very need. Congressional
| research. Also, until Gingrich in the 104th-ish Congress
| convinced them to shut it down in the 90's, the Legislative
| branch had their own independent Office of Technology
| Assessment research arm which to my understanding was a
| thorn in lobbyists side, because not only did they have a
| mandate to run down discrepancies (i.e. lobbyist said X,
| but our research/subpoenaing found Y is the case).
|
| It was nuked because "we should just listen to lobbyists
| more", and basically the replacement enacted was to take
| double OTA's yearly budget, and drop that onto the Library
| of Congress, I suppose with the implication the GOP
| believes that Congresspeople should do their _own_
| research.
|
| The level of follow thru on that is probably just what
| you'd expect.
|
| If OTA came back, I'd be one of the first to throw my hat
| in the ring as a researcher/go-for, just because I believe
| it is such an essential piece of a healthy legislative
| institution, and we have suffered greatly over the past
| decades for want of it.
| sagarm wrote:
| The end result of Congress not being able to delegate to
| experts will be under regulation and lobbyists running
| rampant.
| notch656c wrote:
| .... as opposed to under regulation, lobbyists running
| rampant, AND tyrannical delegated "experts" as we have
| now.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| It's good to let agencies make laws if they make good laws.
| It's bad to let agencies make laws if they make bad laws. The
| liberal obsession with process is what lets the far right
| make inroads everywhere, since they don't share it.
| tristor wrote:
| What is good law and what is bad law? This is subjective,
| and likely shifts with the context of the surrounding
| society. Law is not morality, even though it may derive
| from social mores. For this reason, process is crucially
| important to prevent tyranny.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| Yes, it's subjective. The ones I like are good. The ones
| that help my allies are good. The ones that punish my
| enemies are good. Pretending that things are any other
| way is madness.
| notch656c wrote:
| When the enforcers and courts are corrupted racketeers,
| even good laws are evil.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| Unless they're corrupt in my favor!
| notch656c wrote:
| Lets be honest, the common American does not have the
| bargaining power to corrupt anyone powerful in their
| favor unless they move to the third world where their
| dollars go further and corruption is even more
| accessible.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| This is the point of left IMO: to collectively develop
| the power to corrupt things in favor of workers. This was
| the point of Tammany Hall. Some Irish immigrant off the
| boat in 1890 was not a Democrat because he believed in
| liberalism, but because his ward healer got his brother a
| job in the sanitation department. When organized labor is
| strong, they can get Democrats to pass pro-labor
| policies. The point of all political economy is to
| corrupt the system of money and power in your _personal_
| favor (including your friends, people with similar class
| interests, your family, etc.). Sometimes that means
| "anti-corruption" but it's simply a bad idea (pointless,
| stupid, naive) to point out that some official is corrupt
| if they are doing what you want them to instead of what
| someone else does.
| djur wrote:
| I agree to an extent, but I also think this is kind of
| kicking the can down the road: how do workers
| collectively decide what is in their interest and what
| isn't? The historically successful socialist answers to
| this question have generally ranged from "something that
| looks a lot like liberal democracy" to "something that
| looks a lot like oligarchic despotism".
| idiotsecant wrote:
| So this sounds like a monarchy with extra steps.
| lolinder wrote:
| My conservative dad said the exact same thing--almost word
| for word, just reversed--about liberals and process in
| 2009. I'm inclined to believe that there are groups of
| every political persuasion who believe the end justifies
| the means.
|
| EDIT: To clarify, I mean that my dad said that liberals
| will do anything to accomplish their goals while
| conservatives play nice. The same idea but in reverse. This
| is why I think that what is actually happening is that
| there's a small group of people in any movement that
| believe the end justifies the means, but it's hard to see
| the ones in your own movement because you agree with them.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| That's the left's problem IMO. The right knows that their
| game is to gain power and use it to achieve goals. The
| liberal left (which is most of it if we're honest) thinks
| they are just trying to gain enough power to make
| everyone play by the rules. The problem is that there is
| not enough power in the world to make your enemies
| bargain in good faith.
|
| Anyway this derailed from the OP which is about some new
| rules that might slightly tip the power in the employer-
| employee relationship in favor of employees. As an
| employee (leftists like to say "worker" but it means the
| same thing), this would be good for me.
| lolinder wrote:
| No, I'm saying that my dad gave me this exact lecture in
| 2009 but in reverse--he said that the problem with the
| right is that they play nice while the liberals will do
| anything it takes to take power and accomplish their
| goals. Literally the exact same thing that you're saying
| but in reverse.
|
| I think what it actually is is that there are factions
| within each group who match your description and it is
| hard to see the faction in your own group because you
| agree with them.
| taeric wrote:
| I know it will sound like a slight to your dad, but in
| 2009 many conservative news outlets were pushing this
| narrative extremely heavily. And, I don't recall any
| actual evidence to back it up. It was more a weaponized
| accusation, much as marital infidelity was in the
| mid/late 90s. Worse, by all evidence since then, the
| record seems to be far more in the opposite direction. :(
| lolinder wrote:
| No offense taken: I strongly disagree with my dad on
| politics, and a big part of the reason why is because of
| just how bad the conservative media was in those years.
|
| Also, even he was appalled by the turn the Republican
| party took with Trump. I doubt he would argue the same
| today. He's a diehard believer in constitutional law, and
| he projected his ideals onto people who didn't actually
| hold them.
|
| That said, I do believe the same tendency occurs on the
| liberal side. It's easy to notice when your opponent
| cheats, it's much harder to see it when a teammate does.
| taeric wrote:
| I fully agree on your closing proposition. I think my
| only concern is I'm worried that is, itself, turning into
| a weapon.
| sailfast wrote:
| Agencies do not make laws, full stop. Agencies are
| empowered by congress via laws to regulate industries.
| These regulations can be challenged in court as to whether
| they have overreached the scope of their regulation written
| in the original law, but they are not making laws.
|
| Agencies should not make laws (in the United States). Even
| good ones.
| notch656c wrote:
| They do in all but name. One day a polymer80 frame in a
| box with a jig is a gun. Another day it is not. The only
| difference is a letter from an ATF agent.
|
| Lawmakers make laws intentionally vague to hide their
| nefarious motives, and then let the courts "determine"
| the agencies can "clarify." Then the lawmakers point
| their fingers at the evil agencies while secretly
| laughing it was all in their plan to offload blame for
| what they planned all along.
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| That's not "making" a law. The law already says certain
| types of firearm are legal and certain are illegal. Now
| if this law were to be maintained by congress, they'd
| need, I don't know, a group of experts who understand
| firearm and congress will constantly revise and add or
| remove items from a list. May be they'll give this group
| a name at some point and then they'd realise that it's
| really hard to manage all this while also having to make
| new laws. So they'll hire someone to execute this for
| them and assign this group of people to that executive.
| salawat wrote:
| Look up Administrative Law. It is lawmaking; even if you
| have such linguistic elides as aliasing the primary verb
| to 'rulemaking' instead.
| notch656c wrote:
| Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, section 478.11
| defines a "firearm receiver" as, "[t]hat part of a
| firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or
| breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually
| threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel."
|
| ATF has "regulated" that an AR-15 lower "receiver" is
| legally a "firearm receiver." Now show me where the "bolt
| or breechblock" is housed in the lower receiver. I
| promise you will not find it. They are basically making
| law.
| projektfu wrote:
| Two things: first, are you referring to a regulation and
| saying that another regulation is inconsistent? It seems
| that neither is making "law" in the sense of an act of
| Congress. It would be different if the law had its own
| definition.
|
| Second, your citation appears to be out of date and the
| current regulation defines "frame or receiver"
| differently.
| notch656c wrote:
| ATF acts are not congress acts. Brilliant statement. No
| one is saying ATF is congress, so by definition their act
| is not an act of congress.
|
| >Second, your citation appears to be out of date and the
| current regulation defines "frame or receiver"
| differently.
|
| At the time of US v Rowald there were pretty clear
| inconsistancies. If you're referring to recent changes
| there's barely been enough time to create a historical
| record as the judicial process is slow, so it seems kind
| of silly to constrain to only post-latest change
| examples.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| The old common law barred non-compete agreements as contracts
| in restraint of trade. It was _superseded_ by statutory anti-
| trust regulation and the creation of government agencies like
| the FTC. If you think the latter doesn 't have power to
| regulate these matters, we fall back to the old common law and
| non-competes are still unenforceable.
| cnelsenmilt wrote:
| This is a convincing argument to me, but there's no telling
| whether it is enough to convince five+ of The Nine.
| tylergetsay wrote:
| When it comes to startups, arent most noncompetes basically in
| the form of stock compensation? It would be hard to work for
| somebody while being invested in a competitor, or am I completely
| off base?
| cbb330 wrote:
| Government intervention is heavy handed and will cause unintended
| side affects with 100% certainty.
|
| What should happen is for: 1) employees to choose to not join
| companies with contracts that they don't agree with 2) employers
| offer better incentive to not leave for roles at risk to poaching
| e.g. RSUs.
|
| A natural market response to bad company policy is always
| preferred to government mandates.
| Daishiman wrote:
| NDAs are just one axis when considering employment that has no
| upsides but the downsides are not necessarily bad enough for
| people who need work to consider them.
|
| They're just not useful and themselves an arbitrary restriction
| of employment that has no place in a a free market.
| not_the_fda wrote:
| Often times you are not informed about non-compete until your
| first day of work unless you know to explicitly ask about it.
| They have you over the barrel at that point.
|
| I once took a job at a design service company. Asked about any
| non-competes and invention stuff. Said there wasn't any
| verbally. I get there and they have this draconian non-compete
| that you can't work for any other design services, start your
| own design service, or work for any of their clients for five
| years.
| dmlerner wrote:
| How are you not informed in advance? Every job I've had,
| there's a contract I sign in advance with all terms, and no
| addendum on day one. I'd think you could refuse to sign an
| addendum, and even sue for promissory estoppel if they fire
| you for not signing.
| not_the_fda wrote:
| Depends on state law. In "at will" to work states they can
| terminate you for anything.
| short_sells_poo wrote:
| Yes, a lawsuit aimed at a big corporation will be surely at
| the fingertips of everyone who is forced by circumstances
| to sign such clauses.
|
| Let's be real, most people will sign whatever is presented
| to them on day 1 of their new employment because they need
| money now. They could refuse to sign, in which case they
| will be shown the door and encouraged to seek opportunities
| elsewhere.
|
| That in 4 years time they might've won a legal battle they
| can't afford is little consolation when they won't be able
| to make rent now.
|
| Nevermind that once they are in a legal battle, they'll
| have great difficulty being hired again.
|
| Please don't take offense, but the level of disconnect
| shown on HN from the prospects and struggles of an average
| person is sometimes staggering.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Why is what you are describing preferable to the government
| outright banning them? California has effectively banned non-
| competes for years and their economy seems to have survived the
| ordeal.
| NegativeK wrote:
| Non-competes require governments to enforce them; abolishing
| them is the actual anti-interventionist strategy.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| How is banning your employees from getting jobs with
| competitors aligned with a free market? That's the opposite of
| a free market: it prohibits me, the worker, from choosing a
| company that I want to work for. If I _can 't_ get a job with a
| company I agree with because I'm under a noncompete (perhaps
| the incentives aren't good enough anymore) then I'm kind of
| fucked, huh?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > employees to choose to not join companies with contracts that
| they don't agree with
|
| And do what? There's not a robust social safety net in the US,
| if every company in your industry has a boilerplate non-compete
| you can't just choose not to sign _any_ of them.
|
| > employers offer better incentive to not leave for roles at
| risk to poaching e.g. RSUs.
|
| Why would they do that when they can just put non-competes in
| their contracts? Or to put it another way, it's extremely hard
| to quantify how many people didn't sign an employment contract
| due to a non-compete (and even harder to quantify the value of
| that _potential_ employee), it 's extremely easy to quantify
| the cost of an RSU program. Which solution do you think an
| entity optimized for profit maximization will choose most
| frequently?
| kmod wrote:
| I mostly think this is a good thing, but there are some fields
| where I feel like employers will have to take other precautions
| that are not as nice.
|
| Most of us here are in tech where "ideas are cheap" is mostly
| true and commonly thought, but there are other fields (in
| particular, finance) where single ideas can easily be worth
| millions of dollars. (Imagine something like "the stock market
| goes down on Friday the 13th's".) How are employers supposed to
| let employees know these ideas? If there aren't noncompetes then
| I suspect employers will limit employees (and their growth) in
| other ways.
|
| At least here in NY firms will pay ex-employees during their non-
| compete. My understanding though is that they only have to pay
| the base salary, which is usually a minority of the total
| compensation (even guaranteed compensation). Would be nice if
| that were fixed.
| lucasgonze wrote:
| I doubt employers just won't hire. That would be self
| defeating. They'll look to protect their trade secrets in other
| ways, mainly through aggressive enforcement of non-disclosure
| agreements.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| I understand noncompetes in some fields... but this can be solved
| in other ways. In my country (slovenia), a noncopete is valid
| only if you're being financially compensated by some amount while
| the noncompete lasts.
|
| It's a bit complicated here, but ideally companies wanting
| noncompetes could be forced to pay the difference between what
| the worker would've earned if they stayed (+ some safety factor
| for a potential raise elsewhere, eg 20%) and what they earn now
| with a noncompete.
|
| So if a worker earned 100k, with the safety factor for a raise
| that means 120k, and can only earn 50k due to a noncompete, the
| company would have to pay the difference of 70k to that worker if
| they wanted to keep the noncompete valid (for a limited amount of
| time). Company keeps their 'secrets', but has to pay for the
| secrecy.
| [deleted]
| weakfortress wrote:
| I don't understand them in any field. I was forced into signing
| one for tech that blocks me from working from any competitor
| for up to 2 years. Depending on how loosely you define
| competitors that _could_ mean I can 't work in tech for 2 years
| after this job. Unfortunately for me I can't afford a lawyer.
| Fortunately for me non-competes of this level are generally
| unenforceable.
|
| You have NDAs already. It's not like you're working for
| Lockheed with secret stealth aircraft knowledge where a non-
| compete might be a national security protection. It's a
| representation of the inequality of bargaining power. If I
| didn't take the job I would've been out another job for
| possibly months to reach my payscale (Staff). They are a
| representation of the scourge of the neo-liberal variety of
| capitalism. It's not true capitalism, it's actually neo-
| feudalism, and it's not the only symptom of it.
|
| You will never get anyone in power to agree to make non-
| competes force payment of a stipend while you're under one. The
| powers that be have paid off congress. The fact the FTC even
| wants to look into this after decades of this abuse just
| demonstrates that fact further.
| blueprint wrote:
| you're not automatically entitled to use or benefit from the
| IP developed by others and then disclosed to you just because
| you signed a paper that promises to pay you for work. maybe
| it makes more sense where your opponent is a horrible but
| huge company like facebook but this move can kill development
| of sensitive or novel tech by underfunded entrepreneurs. it
| is a mistake for the USA. maybe you guys should downvote me
| more while you ride around in your teslas powered by slave
| labor batteries.
| aliher1911 wrote:
| I think you are confusing non-compete and NDA, IP rights,
| non solicitation agreements and the like. You can go work
| for competitor, but it doesn't allow you to use any of your
| previous employer's IP, poach colleagues, clients etc.
| Doesn't prevent you from using your expertise and come up
| with novel things. And some big companies do care that you
| don't do it, because they don't want to go into litigations
| because layers like to target fat cats.
| blueprint wrote:
| i'm not confusing them. i know what i wrote. humans
| cannot avoid using IP from previous companies. what's
| your background ? (are you technical?) and there's more
| to this than existing big companies and their disposable
| funding.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| What does tesla batteries have anything to do with this?
| And california has banned them for years but its tech
| sector seems to be thriving and much, much stronger than
| anywhere in Europe that actually enforces them. So what are
| you basing your prediction on?
| blueprint wrote:
| [flagged]
| schnable wrote:
| I think you can afford a lawyer as a staff engineer,
| especially for an issue that directly affects your
| compensation.
| weakfortress wrote:
| [dead]
| supergeek wrote:
| Non-competes make more sense when you're working a highly
| personal job. It's very common for doctors to sign a non-
| compete saying they can't set up a practice within 15 miles
| of their employer for some time so that they don't take all
| of their clients with them when they leave.
| runarberg wrote:
| The power imbalance is such that it won't matter if a non-
| compete clause is enforceable or not. If it scares former
| workers from trying, they are in effect despite never
| actually being enforced. I think this is probably true of
| most workers which sign them.
| LeonM wrote:
| > a noncopete is valid only if you're being financially
| compensated by some amount while the noncompete lasts.
|
| And this is about the only way they hold up in court, otherwise
| the non-compete would be a one-sided contract.
|
| IANAL, but I was once sued by a former employer over a non-
| compete (an entry level IT job). The judge basically swept the
| floor with it.
|
| Also, it made me understand why severance packages exist, it is
| usually a salary compensation for the non-compete duration. Now
| when you hear outrage over some bank exec getting a million
| dollar severance, know that this can be because of a non-
| compete.
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| The only time I've ever heard of a noncompete being enforced
| was when an IT worker bid against his employer on a contract
| renewal he was working on, and won. His newly former employer
| had sued him and won, and made him unhappy for a long time
| via the courts. Some things like noncompetes really exist for
| the worst case scenario, but is threatened in all cases.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > Now when you hear outrage over some bank exec getting a
| million dollar severance, know that this can be because of a
| non-compete.
|
| But, as you pointed out with your story, much of the outrage
| is still directed at the rank hypocrisy that goes on -
| companies easily try to force noncompetes with little or no
| compensation to low level workers, but then automatically
| know they need to pay execs millions for the same privilege.
| pvarangot wrote:
| > And this is about the only way they hold up in court
|
| I think if your company gets bought and you get stock
| compensation of the company buying it, both as a founder or
| an employee, they can also make it hold in court.
| [deleted]
| chaoz_ wrote:
| Would be interesting to see how contracts in HFT are going to
| change. From what I heard, when some specialists (e.g. hardware
| folks) are changing jobs, then the firm is likely to lose an
| "edge" as competitors will have access to similar
| technology/knowledge. Garden leave helps to mitigate this effect.
|
| If non-competes are banned, then TCs are (probably) going to rise
| even more.
| affyboi wrote:
| For quant finance and HFT noncompetes usually pay out pretty
| generously
| thwayunion wrote:
| Interestingly, the FTC rule does not include an exception for
| garden pay.
| ghaff wrote:
| Probably just as well. Garden leave can be a pretty
| unsatisfactory mitigation, especially if it's not 100% of
| salary or if a lot of total comp is in bonus or equity. And
| even money aside, some people may not want to put their
| career on hold for a year.
|
| Essentially garden leave is a compromise that's better than
| nothing and will make companies think twice about trying to
| enforce a non-compete. However, non-competes still raise
| flags for potential employers as well. (I used to work for
| a very small company and we wouldn't touch anyone who had a
| non-compete in place.)
| thwayunion wrote:
| _> when some specialists (e.g. hardware folks) are changing
| jobs, then the firm is likely to lose an "edge" as competitors
| will have access to similar technology/knowledge._
|
| So without the employee the firm can't compete? If that's
| really true, then that employee should be able to extract as
| much blood as they want. They are literally the keystone of the
| business.
|
| The good news is that the FTC rule would allow the firm to
| enforce a non-compete by giving the employee a 25% equity
| stake. That seems like a fair trade in exchange for with-
| holding such incredibly valuable specialized knowledge from the
| market.
| renewiltord wrote:
| It's less that and more that once you see the inside here you
| can pass that on to the other place. Knowledge is everything.
| And it turns out you don't have to be the one to make
| something in order to memorize it.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| Is it harder to come up a new idea for a trading strategy or is
| it harder to actually implement the system to perform those
| trades?
|
| Not being in that industry, to me it seems like the easiest
| part is coming up with a new trading idea. The hardest part
| would seem to be actually implementing it without bugs.
| Therefore, I'm not sure if noncompete clauses really provide a
| super-significant amount of value. Even if you left a firm with
| a super good trading strategy today and wanted to implement it
| elsewhere, you're still going to have to perfectly re-build it,
| which is probably not trivial.
| ecshafer wrote:
| Non-Competes being legal is only acceptable I think if the worker
| will continued being paid for the period of the non-compete. I
| can see reasons that non-competes exist, but those reasons don't
| really make sense in a world where patents and trademarks also
| exist. The fact that they are essentially illegal in California,
| and California's economy works shows that they are unnecessary
| and also don't hinder technological development.
| makestuff wrote:
| IMO it should be full compensation of your last years' w2. In
| finance they pay you garden leave but only base pay. So they
| are only out a small portion of your actual cost.
| slymon99 wrote:
| Yea, I've always wondered if finance companies intentionally
| structure their comp this way to make garden leave more
| damaging
| peteradio wrote:
| > The fact that they are essentially illegal in California, and
| California's economy works shows that they are unnecessary and
| also don't hinder technological development.
|
| That's no argument. Parasites work as organism taxon, doesn't
| mean all life can become so.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Analogies are not arguments.
|
| An example of an economy outputting businesses at the highest
| levels of performance while barring non competes is an
| argument.
| gnicholas wrote:
| > _but those reasons don 't really make sense in a world where
| patents and trademarks also exist._
|
| Trademarks don't really help with this. The bigger issue is
| trade secrets. You can't make someone forget how your as-yet
| unreleased prototype is designed, and proving that their
| subsequent work for a competitor draws on that knowledge is
| expensive and time consuming. Not to say that non competes are
| a good idea, just saying trademarks are irrelevant to the
| conversation, and trade secrets are a more complicated issue
| than patents.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| That'll still hurt you because entitled employers will want to
| know why you didn't just take another job and will worry that
| if you sign their non-compete, they might have to pay out your
| salary + benefits for a year or more when you decide to leave.
| mjevans wrote:
| On your resume you'd list the NDA period as employment by the
| other company in technical terms.
| gdcbe wrote:
| If they pay me close to my salary for doing nothing I'm all in.
| I can always side hustle something completely different on the
| side or just take the money and focus more on my kids. Please
| do enforce the agreement :D
| asveikau wrote:
| One of the biggest problems I see with non competes is that
| "competition" can be subjective, especially in a world of large
| employers with extremely diversified business interests.
|
| Eg. If you move from one big tech co to another, you may be
| technically moving to a competitor, but the subject matter of
| your work could be unrelated.
|
| This is probably true of other industries too.
| mcv wrote:
| My current client had a non-compete in their contract
| specifying I would not be allowed to work for one of their
| customers, or something like that. This client is one of the
| big four accountancy firms; their customers can really
| include everyone, and I have no way to tell who is or isn't
| their customer.
|
| And my work doesn't even include any contact with their
| customers! What they really wanted was that I wouldn't do
| for, or even share with, the other big accountancy firms what
| I was going to do for them, because it's something unusual
| that's their idea and they think it gives them an advantage.
| That's completely fine of course. The original reading was
| ridiculous.
|
| I don't think they changed it in the contract, but they did
| explain it by email.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Pay shouldn't just continue, it should increase exponentially
| at a rate that outpaces inflation by enough to disincentivize
| maintaining it. Make it compound monthly at 200% APR.
|
| Might be worth 3 years of pay to keep someone silent and idle
| for 2 years in some exceptional cases, but 7 years for 3 years
| would be exceedingly rare and 15 for 4 would be unheard of.
|
| I'd be happy to sink all my time in my hobbies for 200% APR
| exponentially growing pay as long as anyone would like.
| ericbarrett wrote:
| My understanding is that this arrangement is common in finance.
| However the worker is not given benefits or bonuses during this
| time. Since private health insurance is massively expensive and
| bonus comp can be a significant fraction of one's pay in the
| field, it can still be onerous.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| >it can still be onerous
|
| Sure you get paid less than you are used to but you are still
| getting more than 95% of the population to do literally
| nothing.
| ericbarrett wrote:
| In some cases the total comp is less than 50% salary. Might
| be fine for some quant PhD to go from $1M to $250k, but if
| this "workaround" to enforcing non-competes becomes more
| popular and spreads to different fields you could see
| positions that go from (say) $80k + benefits to $40k
| without, with furlough enforced for a year. That would be
| devastating for a family with children.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| This wouldn't be a widespread practice outside of fields
| with proprietary data, relationships, or trade secrets,
| which tend to have better compensation. The costs of
| having a non-working employee on the payroll, even at the
| $40k-level need to be worth it. It isn't going to be the
| case for a random grocery store manager or whatever that
| they are worth the costs.
| ipaddr wrote:
| But the people you are concerned with are not paid 40k
| plus 40k bonus that can be clawed away they are paid 80k.
|
| Bonuses are like options being worthwhile in that they
| are mostly out of your control. When I see a position
| pays 140,000 plus bonus which was almost 40,000 last year
| I know I can only count on 140,000 this year and if
| 40,000 happens to be awarded great.
| mcv wrote:
| Sounds to me like a great time to start working on your own
| project. Maybe even start your own company.
| notch656c wrote:
| Should be reciprocal if it exists. I.e. if the employee leaves,
| the company would be barred from hiring anyone else for any
| remotely similar tasks. Make them taste their own medicine and
| decide if it's worth it.
| falcor84 wrote:
| I would love to take a short vacation to an alternate
| universe where all job descriptions say that applicants MUST
| NOT have any recent experience in the area of employment.
| kube-system wrote:
| That's kind of how clean room design works.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
| secretsatan wrote:
| Ignorance is bliss, especially if it's well paid
| devmunchies wrote:
| It _IS_ reciprocal. You 're welcome to present that "non-
| comparable hire" contract to the company before accepting
| your offer, but they no doubt will rescind your offer. You
| have the same right to reject the offer if you don't like the
| contract they present.
|
| It's common for executive's lawyers to negotiate contracts
| with the firm before accepting an offer (including what the
| firm can or cannot do to the executive without penalties). I
| wish it were more normalized for ICs.
| mywittyname wrote:
| They'd hire for a different role and "transfer" the person.
| notch656c wrote:
| That just sets the precedent the non-compete bound employee
| can be hired in the same manner. Reciprocal.
| jakeinspace wrote:
| This is the perfect use case for anonymous tips receiving a
| percentage of the fine.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Works well for taxes and other whistleblowers.
| Rayhem wrote:
| It is always interesting to me how much 'morality' (in the
| sense that an individual/corporation 'should' abide by these
| rules) can be derived from applying symmetry principles.
| stcredzero wrote:
| People aren't particles, though. What symmetry tests are
| good for with regards to human beings, is to see if
| something like a principle which claims to be "fundamental"
| is really fundamental.
| andirk wrote:
| I think it's safe to argue that every single thing in a
| contract is for the benefit of the employer and has zero
| to do with morality. And it is up to the employee to have
| their own internal contract that the employer must align
| to. It's like legal court where the prosecution and
| defense go full court press not out of morality but
| because the belief that if both sides pull their hardest
| then the truth will be found.
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| The "golden rule".
|
| Only do unto others that which you wish others to do unto
| you (or something like that, you get the idea).
| sieabahlpark wrote:
| [dead]
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "The fact that they are essentially illegal in California, and
| California's economy works shows that are unnecessary and also
| don't hinder technological development."
|
| If there were another US state where noncompete agreements were
| "essentially legal" whose economy "worked" what would that
| show.
|
| Are there any other factors one should consider that affect
| whether a state's economy "works".
|
| Is it possible to work for a competitor of one's former
| employer without violating the former employer's intellectual
| property rights.
|
| (NB. I am in favour of regulating non-competes.)
| pacetherace wrote:
| If something unethical works doesn't mean it should be
| condoned.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "Dark Patterns", "Surveillance Capitalism", "Big Tech"
|
| It works!
| deaddodo wrote:
| I mean, if you want the counter example; we already have it.
| Texas and Massachusetts both had much more developed and
| supported engineering industries + talent pools in the first
| half+ of the 1900s. Talent specifically moved _to_ California
| to be able to innovate without the encumbrances of current
| legislation in those states.
|
| Sure, it's more complex than that and there are other
| reasons. But ultimately, a single piece of legislation had a
| huge hand in turning California into the preeminent global
| leader in the vast span of technology industries.
| crazygringo wrote:
| But even that has major drawbacks -- if you're not actually
| working, then you're not building your resume, you're not
| getting promotions, you're not advancing. And if you find your
| work meaningful and satisfying, that meaning and satisfaction
| is gone. Not to mention who determines how much "being paid"
| means, when compensation isn't just base salary but also
| variable things like company bonuses, individual performance
| bonuses, stock compensation -- plus the increased compensation
| you'd get from potential raises.
|
| I too can see the reasons that non-competes exist, but I see
| more reasons why they shouldn't exist. And even if a company
| thinks it's worth it to pay someone's salary for a year or two
| to enforce a non-compete, is this really what's best for the
| economy overall? Motivated, highly skilled people excluded from
| the job market?
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| Highly motivated/skilled people will probably do valuable
| things with their time off that is not measured well by GDP.
| asdff wrote:
| Sure, but your next employer isn't going to care that you
| took up fly fishing, they will just see a gap in your
| resume and ding you for that.
| mindvirus wrote:
| Plenty of people just put "non compete" for that span of
| time, especially in the hedge fund world where these are
| common (and compensated).
| andirk wrote:
| Whenever asked why there's a gap in my resume, I take
| insult, laugh, and say I didn't feel like working. I am
| compensated handsomely for my skills and that offers me
| the opportunity to be away from FTE as I so desire. I
| also have this and that side project I worked on because
| I'm obsessed with this coding shit. And then I ask them
| why is there no break in their resume? What are they
| afraid of? Are they not good at saving $? Have no desire
| to see the world outside of work? Never seen the-- you
| get the point.
| mrfox321 wrote:
| Maybe as an edge case. I think this argument underestimates
| survival instincts.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Some will, for sure. But plenty of others will struggle
| severely or even enter into depression.
|
| Productive work is a major factor in psychological well-
| being. And a lot of people have spent their career being a
| highly specialized expert in one thing.
|
| Expecting them to abandon that for a year or more in order
| to instead contribute "entry-level skills" at something
| else can be difficult. It's already known how retirement
| can lead to depression and a painful feeling of emptiness
| -- imagine how much worse that can be in the prime middle
| of your career.
|
| It's not about the money or whether GDP measures something
| or not. It's about the ability to contribute _what you 're
| best at_, where _your excellence lies_ , or having that
| ability taken away. For many people, there isn't any kind
| of easy substitute for their primary area of expertise.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| I would agree these are system-wide less efficient, but
| shouldn't paid "garden leave" be legal if parties agree
| upfront?
| fendy3002 wrote:
| Well if all companies are doing it, employees will have no
| option other than to agree. This is the current case with
| non compete afaik.
| randomdata wrote:
| _> Well if all companies are doing it, employees will
| have no option other than to agree._
|
| If all employees rejected them, companies would have no
| option but to disband them.
|
| The issue is that when one enters into a non-compete
| without equivalent compensation the government loses
| potential tax revenue. Income tax is maximized when
| workers are working most productively, so there is a
| strong incentive for the government to keep workers
| working productively. Similar reason for why we have
| minimum wage.
|
| If non-competes provide sufficient "garden leave" then
| the tax revenue should not be impacted, so there is no
| reason for the government to care. The productivity is
| still captured. The government isn't in the business of
| spotting bad deals for individuals - you are quite free
| to make all kinds of boneheaded financial decisions -
| only bad deals for itself.
|
| Granted, execution and enforcement can be a challenge.
| Say you enter into a non-compete with "garden leave" of
| $1. Is that sufficient compensation with respect to the
| intent of allowing "garden leave"? Now you need a
| tribunal to make the call and all the complexities to go
| along with it. And so, when drafting laws, it may be more
| practical to prohibit "garden leave" as well.
| chadash wrote:
| There's a big difference. Paid gardening leave means that
| the employer actually has skin in the game. I'd bet that
| 9 times out of 10 they won't actually enforce these non-
| competes if they actually have to bear some cost (certain
| industries might be exceptions). The problem with the
| status quo is that an employer will have the non-compete
| in play regardless of whether the "competition" would
| really hurt them.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| When I look at the last decade of my employment, my base
| salary is less than 10% of my overall comp. Maybe even
| 5%.
|
| For high demand folks (the kind we read about in
| executive emails between Apple and Google and so on) it
| seems very possible that a company would opt to pay 10%
| of the employee's comp to deny them from the competition.
| bfdm wrote:
| That can be solved by setting the payment terms to match
| some minimum % of total compensation of some period
| before the paid leave.
|
| eg, you get full benefits plus no less than 80% of all
| compensation of the previous 12mo. Non-cash compensation
| (eg equity) may be replaced with equivalent cash.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| That's an offer, not a solution. What if the offer isn't
| reasonable? What if the employee is leaving _because_ the
| equity vesting has dropped off? (eg: leaving after 4
| years)
|
| > "Non-cash compensation (eg equity) may be replaced with
| equivalent cash. "
|
| What's the equivalent cash value of options? The
| variability here is huge. Seems better to just ban these
| schemes entirely, especially considering there's
| seemingly zero upside to allowing them.
|
| Remember: California has never allowed noncompetes and
| we're doing just fine in the tech department. Better plan
| would be for the rest of the country to follow our lead.
| coredog64 wrote:
| What if you allow the new employer to buy out the non
| compete? So if your old employer low-balls you, the new
| employer can buy it out on your behalf. If your knowledge
| is really worth it, that provides an incentive to make
| the pay worthwhile. Doesn't help in all cases, so I'd
| couple that with stronger restrictions on what a company
| can call a competitor. If there's a cut for the state,
| that will provide incentive for them to enforce.
|
| But really the right move here is either no non-competes
| or employees getting to set their own prices for them.
| Being on the wrong side of a power asymmetry forces
| behavior changes.
| tptacek wrote:
| I assume Garden Leave would remain legal even if
| noncompetes were struck down nationally. You can pay people
| not to compete with you, without a noncompete; that's what
| a job offer is.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I would agree these are system-wide less efficient, but
| shouldn't paid "garden leave" be legal if parties agree
| upfront?
|
| "Garden leave" is basically just being in paid employment
| with no duties.
|
| Neither the FTC action nor state policies like those in
| California generally prohibit noncompetes _while employed_.
|
| However, if the compensation for such a contracted "garden
| leave" was substantially less than normal full-time comp
| for the employee, and agreed prior to employment rather
| than as a separate independent agreement at the end of the
| employment-with-duties, I can imagine the FTC still seeing
| it as an unfair competition practice, and state courts,
| limiting recovery for breach to any "garden leave"
| compensation for the time in breach.
| deaddodo wrote:
| > Neither the FTC action nor state policies like those in
| California generally prohibit noncompetes while employed.
|
| Where did you get that idea? In California: non-competes
| are carte blanche unenforced and even considered abusive
| and illegal in many contexts (for non-executives),
| whether you're currently employed or not.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Where did you get that idea?
|
| From the actual case law of application of the
| prohibition by state courts, etc.
|
| > In California: non-competes are carte blanche
| unenforced and even considered abusive and illegal in
| many contexts (for non-executives), whether you're
| currently employed or not.
|
| This both a misuse of the phrase "carte blanche" and
| inaccurate in its substantive message. Prohibition on
| competing work _while employed_ is a well-documented
| exception to both California's general policy against
| non-competes _and_ its general policy against employer
| prohibitions against moonlighting; your employer can't
| stop you from working for someone else who doesn't
| compete with in your spare time while you are employed by
| them, and can 't stop you from competing with them when
| you are no longer employed by them, but they can prohibit
| competing work while you are employed:
|
| https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-
| benefits/2020...
|
| https://www.mossbollinger.com/blog/2020/december/my-
| employer...
| andirk wrote:
| To a lot of us, career growth and the knowledge thereof is a
| requirement; we seek to be onward and upward whether in
| skillset, enjoyment, pay, etc. I have learnt in recent HN
| thread that this is not as common as I thought [0].
|
| Non-competes are stupid period and thankfully in California
| are not enforceable. It's similar to a prenuptial agreement
| in marriage except who the f is marrying their employer?? A
| good employer wants to keep you, will compensate you to do
| so, and if they can't, they are proud of you and wish you
| well, _even if that means a stronger competitor_ .
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34257325
| mumblemumble wrote:
| This is the standard I knew from the trading industry. I would
| say that, while it does initially seem more palatable, it also
| has some downsides. One that might be particularly relevant to
| programmers is that it sets up a structure that functions
| somewhat like a penalty of 1 year's worth of paid vacation for
| choosing a new job outside the industry.
|
| I don't have the business or economic bonafides to back this
| up, but it seems likely to me that such an incentive structure
| would not serve the benefits of society as a whole, and might
| become quite damaging were it to become widespread. My own
| sense is that, with the _possible_ exception of the "you can't
| take your client sheet with you" style of noncompete that
| sometimes gets applied to salespeople and hairstylists, non-
| competes are simply anti-capitalist. Not in some sort of
| ideological sense, just in a very practical, "This is nothing
| but a tool for retarding GDP by further concentrating wealth in
| the pockets of the already-wealthy," sort of way.
| [deleted]
| jacobr1 wrote:
| Even in California, you can get sued for violating an NDA
| when going to competitor if you bring private technical data,
| which seems like a reasonable compromise. You can bring your
| expertise, but no code. Intersecting with this are patents. A
| company can also protect its IP with patents, but when should
| choose to disallow, or have more liberal patent laws? It
| seems there are similar tradeoff between the value to
| companies, competitors and public interests.
| deaddodo wrote:
| > Even in California, you can get sued for violating an NDA
| when going to competitor if you bring private technical
| data, which seems like a reasonable compromise. You can
| bring your expertise, but no code. Intersecting with this
| are patents. A company can also protect its IP with
| patents, but when should choose to disallow, or have more
| liberal patent laws? It seems there are similar tradeoff
| between the value to companies, competitors and public
| interests.
|
| What does that have to do with non-competes? What you're
| describing is IP law and theft; and is illegal pretty much
| throughout the western world.
|
| Non-competes specifically and only exist in the context of
| barring employee competition and migration of talent. All
| via legal labor servitude at the justification of "training
| investment" and/or "unfair competition".
| mumblemumble wrote:
| Also no material non-public information even if it's not
| technically technical.
|
| The standard I'm familiar with is, knowledge you acquired
| during your time at a previous employer is safe to share
| with your current one if you can support it with a
| citation.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| workers shouldn't benefit from rising wage markets?
| monksy wrote:
| Non-competes do not protect an organization against IP theft or
| trade sceret dismenination. Those are portected by NDAs,
| confidentiality agreements, copyrights, patents, etc.
|
| Non-competes limit where your staff can go to. Without proper
| compensation for the time period in which they apply for,
| they're a very one sided (and in some cases illegal [NCs are
| legal in IL unless they assert an economic hardship]) way to
| prevent employees leaving. The claims for them is "training
| cost is expensive and it's to limit staff from training at one
| company and leaving" (which as we know.. companies generally
| don't do training in house)
| chadash wrote:
| _> Those are protected by NDAs, confidentiality agreements,
| copyrights, patents, etc._
|
| This gets thrown around HN a lot but I don't think it matches
| reality. Say I work in machine learning algorithms for show
| recommendations at Netflix. Amazon hires me to work on their
| machine learning algorithm recommender on Prime Video. Sure,
| I might have NDAs to protect what I learned at Netflix, but
| how does Netflix realistically show whether or not I
| disseminated that knowledge at Amazon? It's not like they can
| just ask to see Amazon's code to see if the knowledge has
| been ported over to there. The only way to really show that I
| infringed an NDA is for someone to rat me out, which is
| probably pretty rare. To that end, I understand why companies
| want non-competes (I'm not saying they should be allowed to
| have them... I'm just saying that there are reasons that they
| exist beyond "we don't want employees to leave). In finance,
| it's very common to get a paid non-compete where you get your
| full salary for as long as the company wants to enforce the
| non-compete. Companies aren't paying these high salaries just
| because "training cost is expensive and it's to limit staff
| from training at one company and leaving". They are doing it
| because they actually fear the consequences of the employee's
| new firm competing with them based on the knowledge that the
| employee has. For this reason, it's also pretty common for
| companies in finance to _not_ pay out gardening leave when
| they aren 't worried about the employee's new company
| directly competing.
| worik wrote:
| > Sure, I might have NDAs to protect what I learned at
| Netflix, but how does Netflix realistically show whether or
| not I disseminated that knowledge at Amazon?
|
| Personal integrity. If you have it, you are valuable. If
| you do not any value you have is short lived.
|
| Cuts both ways. Does Amazon have the integrity to not
| expect the violation of your agreement with NF?
|
| Life is simpler with honesty
| andirk wrote:
| The legality, and even the exact definition, of IP is not
| black and white and comes up all the time in copyright
| discussions. If we want to say that the NDA states that
| your brain while at this company is ours and must be wiped
| if you leave, uh what? I think the spirit of an NDA is more
| that you don't release private information about the
| company.
|
| I look forward to the day I can add inventions to that one
| field that asks for them upon being hired!
| mcherm wrote:
| > It's not like they can just ask to see Amazon's code to
| see if the knowledge has been ported over to there.
|
| If they can get enough evidence to make it through the
| pleading stage of a lawsuit, then they can ask exactly that
| during discovery.
| danaris wrote:
| > It's not like they can just ask to see Amazon's code to
| see if the knowledge has been ported over to there.
|
| Probably not, but I would imagine that in cases like this
| there would be a third party given access to both sides,
| and charged with determining if theft has occurred.
| monksy wrote:
| Violations are determined via a legal complaint and
| review/investigation. Violations are not termined by
| company A hiring a person from company B.
|
| Non-competes (non-paid out) only put time between companies
| (in some states it might be beyond the lifetime of the
| person under a NC). To put that, and not fully pay out at
| the current salary, puts a uneven pressure on the
| individual who was pressured into agreeing to it for
| (unguarenteed) employment.
|
| Additionally, non-competes survive termination by the
| company.
| [deleted]
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > The fact that they are essentially illegal in California, and
| California's economy works shows that they are unnecessary and
| also don't hinder technological development.
|
| The general rules that most states use for deciding when non-
| competes are enforceable aren't that bad. E.g. if you work at a
| bakery, you're not going to be allowed to open your own bakery
| two blocks away within a year, but it's fine if you do it a
| couple towns over. That doesn't seem especially crazy to me.
| snarf21 wrote:
| That seems crazy to me. Why should I have to move to start a
| business? If I can start a new bakery with no following and
| run the old out of business, then it seems like the industry
| was ripe for competition anyway.
|
| I do think it is reasonable for the competes to include not
| stealing recipes or IP or other capital from the business.
| Contacts are harder to legislate but there is a difference
| between remembering your best contacts and contacting them
| via LinkedIn vs exporting a contact list from your company's
| Salesforce and using that.
| kelnos wrote:
| What? No, that bakery example is completely crazy.
| scottLobster wrote:
| Uh, how does that make any sense? What if the local bakery
| sucks? Why is the bakery you work at immune to competition
| but the bakery a couple of towns over isn't?
|
| How are you examining these rules that it "doesn't seem
| especially crazy?", what's the rationale?
|
| Capitalism requires competition to produce positive outcomes,
| the only reason to limit or ban competition is in the edge
| cases where the model doesn't work (patents, utilities, etc).
| Frankly we have too many regulatory moats as it is IMO.
| gameman144 wrote:
| I'm curious, why does that seem less crazy than the simpler
| case of _being_ allowed to open a bakery two blocks away
| within a year?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| This example seems extra crazy. The only entities it protects
| are large companies. The biggest threat to a local bakery is
| not their employee leaving and starting their own bakery, but
| a large bakery chain coming in and undercutting their prices.
| No non-compete will help with that. Meanwhile, the large
| bakery chain _does_ benefit from being able to stop you from
| baking for someone else if you leave their employ. At a
| minimum it helps them suppress wages.
| ipaddr wrote:
| It could increase wages as labor/labour would have one less
| worker in the pool increasing the demand and wages.
| [deleted]
| Volundr wrote:
| And if your employer is a national player? International?
| dagw wrote:
| _if you work at a bakery, you 're not going to be allowed to
| open your own bakery two blocks away within a year_
|
| What if you work at Starbucks and want to open your own
| coffee shop. Is it reasonable that you should not be able to
| open a coffee shop within two blocks of any existing
| Starbucks?
| mcv wrote:
| And if Starbucks closes a shop because of unionisation, can
| the employees reopen it as a co-op? I certainly think that
| should be possible, and encouraged.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Why should employers have any control over your life
| whatsoever after they're not paying you?
| Terretta wrote:
| their investment in teaching you their IP -- that's the
| theory
|
| you trade getting to learn for agreeing not to use it
| against them for a while -- is the theory
|
| at line worker level i'd argue this is nonsense, at 'how to
| mill iPhones from a single block of metal' or 'self driving
| car brain' maybe its real, but there are ndas and patents
| for that
| gameman144 wrote:
| I really get a kick out of this thinking, because there's
| literally no alternative from the employer's point of
| view. If you want to hire someone to do a job, you _have_
| to teach them how to do the job.
|
| To impose punitive measures after-the-fact because
| someone taught you how to do a job that _they needed you
| to do_ seems hilarious even on the face of it.
|
| To be clear, saying "You're not allowed to use our IP or
| our machinery or our supplies" is totally reasonable; if
| I quit Starbucks, then _of course_ I won 't have
| Starbucks machines or merch. To say that you're not
| allowed to do something because they happened to be the
| ones to train you seems just silly.
|
| I get very strong middle-school vibes, where you
| introduce your friend-from-another-school to your group,
| then get mad when they become better friends with someone
| else than they are with you.
| monksy wrote:
| > their investment in teaching you their IP -- that's the
| theory
|
| In your example, they cannot claim the skills and basic
| education that gets you up to the point of "how they mill
| iphones within a context" (i.e. the milling, operating
| the machinery, physical properties of the metal, etc)
|
| They are not legally able to include a huge educational
| backbone of knowledge (that they may have taught you) as
| their prioptary IP. Again, NCs don't prevent that
| disemination. That disemination can happen without
| employment.
| scottLobster wrote:
| Yeah, that theory's a load. If the fear is formal IP
| theft then as you point out there are harder protections
| for that. If the fear is they'll learn your business
| practices and use them to compete with you, then you suck
| and they deserve to win. Because you're the established
| business with all the advantages and existing customers,
| even if they have the capital lying around to start a
| copy-cat business tomorrow you should be able to wipe the
| floor with them and make sure they never get off the
| ground.
| winrid wrote:
| The interesting thing about this is that companies may treat
| their employees a little bit better if they know they can
| immediately go to a competitor.
| chunk_waffle wrote:
| Press release from the FTC (and no paywall):
| https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/...
| commandlinefan wrote:
| [flagged]
| saraton1n wrote:
| Of course, it was entirely hearsay, but I've always heard that
| non-competes were unenforceable and primarily a scare tactic.
| It's yet to impact me tangibly, and I understand the need to
| protect IP, but I don't think non-competes are the way to go
| about it. I believe this is the right move!
| fleddr wrote:
| For those wondering how this relates to hairstylists...
|
| People are not a customer of "Awesome Hair Inc". They are a
| customer of Laura, whom happens to work for said company. Because
| Laura knows exactly how to do my hair properly.
|
| So when Laura switches company or becomes an independent, her
| customers follow her. Awesome Hair Inc just lost half their
| regular customers. A source of perpetual drama. Now you know why
| hairstylists are so excellent at bonding with people. It's how
| you create forever customers.
|
| An interesting variation of this dynamic is found at the very
| publication of the article: NYT. Some of their journalists have
| become very savvy on social media, building up an enormous
| personal following. A following that is loyal to the person, not
| specifically to NYT. Yet it was NYT that paid for it, as these
| journalists tweet on the job, as part of their job. At the very
| least, NYT could hope that this sends a lot of clicks towards
| their articles, but even that is questionable as increasingly
| these journalists tweet screenshots of key sections, knowing that
| nobody on social media actually reads anything.
|
| An awkward marriage, to say the least.
| djur wrote:
| News outlets already have social media policies (often
| inconsistently enforced, but they exist). If they were really
| worried about their employees using their good names to
| kickstart their Substack they could do something about it. In
| reality, NYT and others actively seek out writers who get a lot
| of engagement on social media.
| lp0_on_fire wrote:
| I think noncompete clauses have their uses so rather than see
| them eliminated completely you make a company pay the employee
| under a noncompete the equivalent salary for the duration.
| Company wants you to sign a noncompete for five years after you
| leave? They can pay for you five more years.
|
| Companies that truly need the protections will shell out for it.
| The ones that include it in their employment contracts because
| that's just what they do, won't.
| ghaff wrote:
| Garden leave isn't a panacea. For example, in Massachusetts,
| there's a relatively recent requirement that employers have to
| pay at least half of an ex-employee's salary for up to a 12
| month non-compete coverage.
|
| Better than nothing I guess. And it does put some skin in the
| game for the employer.
|
| But while that might look like a good deal for some people who
| are in a position to just travel, start a project of some sort,
| etc. it isn't for everyone. Someone with a mortgage, kids in
| college, or other financial obligations might not think that
| dropping to half their base pay--to say nothing of just taking
| a year off mid-career--is so great.
|
| And, depending upon how specialized they are, there may not be
| a role open to them which is a good match with their experience
| and skills.
| blueprint wrote:
| this seems like a really bad idea. people can just join a
| company, get trained, then leave. hello corporate espionage.
| aliqot wrote:
| as opposed to joining a company, get trained, get laid off when
| the economy dips, forced to be unemployed
| blueprint wrote:
| so maybe regulators should introduce nullifying noncompetes
| with certain cases, not nullifying them in every
| circumstance. but still, they serve an obvious purpose, even
| if you are laid off by that company. the idea is you are
| given confidential info that you are not supposed to use
| because that's unfair competition. not that you're likely to
| care
| chunk_waffle wrote:
| > the idea is you are given confidential info that you are
| not supposed to use because that's unfair competition
|
| This proposal does not nullify NDAs (Non disclosure
| agreements), from the FTC press release:
|
| "The proposed rule would generally not apply to other types
| of employment restrictions, like non-disclosure
| agreements."
|
| There are also exceptions to partners and owners selling a
| business.
| FL410 wrote:
| Noncompete != Nondisclosure
| dchuk wrote:
| There are still intellectual property laws in place that could
| protect the original companies. Non-competes stifle innovators
| at big companies from being able to leave and pursue their own
| ideas that are in the same domain as the parent company.
| blueprint wrote:
| I'm not saying the existing solution is complete, either. But
| banning noncompetition itself is not the right answer. Why do
| contract noncompetes clauses exist? What about the small
| companies and inventors and IP owners? None of these replies
| I'm seeing have considered the side effects to the world
| except what would clearly also benefit giant companies.
| elashri wrote:
| If you allow a company to hire someone, then they left their
| current job, move to another place (worse if it is
| international and require visa) then the company says sorry but
| we have to let you fo without this being illegal. Now why this
| is different?. This at least restore some of the power balance.
| rpmw wrote:
| In my experience noncompetes aren't enforced, unless you are
| very high up in the company and even then C-level folks usually
| get nice incentives to stay away from their competitors.
| slackfan wrote:
| Noncompetes do not block corporate espionage in any way shape
| or form.
| pc86 wrote:
| Corporate espionage is a crime. You don't need to tack non-
| competes on top of that.
|
| And if you think the primary purpose of non-competes is to
| prevent or mitigate corporate espionage, I've got a bridge to
| sell you.
| blueprint wrote:
| yeah and how exactly do you prove it happened ? and where did
| you get all this money to litigate? I dont believe you yet
| understand the problem.
| egypturnash wrote:
| GOOD
| eclipsetheworld wrote:
| In Germany we have non-competes, however, the employer has to
| continue paying the ex-employee (a part of) their salary for the
| non-compete to have any effect.
| blululu wrote:
| How much pay is given for this? This doesn't really give the
| desired effect unless the payout amount is guaranteed to be a
| substantial portion of salary. If a company can just pay
| $1/year for a non-compete then it is as good as nothing. In
| theory an employee can negotiate their contract but in practice
| it is much harder to do this since it involves lawyers and the
| power balance of the relationship is fundamentally unequal.
| Having a blanket ban on non-competes or requiring a significant
| percentage of compensation is needed to make this work.
| MiddleEndian wrote:
| Even that seems too much in favor of non-competes. Instead it
| should simply be treated like another job that I can quit at-
| will.
|
| If you don't want me to work for a competitor, pay me some
| amount of money we negotiate like a salary. It's up to you if
| you think it's worth enough to pay me not to work, and me to be
| paid enough not to advance my career how I choose during that
| time.
| teawrecks wrote:
| Agreed, but how is that different from what the person you
| replied to said? I assume they can't pay someone for their
| silence against their will. Or maybe I'm wrong.
| sagarm wrote:
| This seems equivalent to simply retaining the employee.
| MiddleEndian wrote:
| Yes, exactly. As it should be. If you don't want me to work
| elsewhere but also don't want me to work, that's on you to
| figure out. Compensate me adequately to do nothing or let
| me be. If companies are unwilling to do that, perhaps it's
| not a real concern.
| berniedurfee wrote:
| Sadly, this concept somehow feels very much counter to American
| culture.
|
| I don't think this would ever be implemented here.
| govg wrote:
| It is implemented in certain areas. For example, "gardening
| leave" is the term used for similar situations in finance.
| Natsu wrote:
| To be honest, this always made the most sense to me. If they
| want a non-compete, fine, but it should have money attached
| because it has value they should pay for.
| edu wrote:
| Same in Spain.
| 0xAFFFF wrote:
| In France a non-compete clause must be attached to financial
| compensation or it is considered void.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| Imagine that the employer does not have a non-compete in
| place with her current employees. In the US, she may offer a
| single, token amount in exchange for signing an agreement
| containing a non-compete clause. This could, for example, be
| described by the employer as a "bonus". It does not have to
| be reasonably-based on the amounts the employee might gain
| from working for a competitor. It could be much lower. The
| employer could make signing the agreement a prerequisite to
| continued employment. Arguably the purpose of such a "bonus"
| is primarily to protect the employer against challenges to
| the enforceability of the agreement, not as an incentive or
| reward to current employees.
| yardie wrote:
| You can always turn it down. Contracts have whats called
| consideration.
|
| I've seen companies try to get away with NCA/NDA by tying
| severance to signing one. I would have to be truly
| desperate to take the money over the health of my career,
| yet that is exactly what a lot of companies rely on.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| In the US, I have never seen a severence agreement that
| did not include confidentiality provisions. However (IMO)
| the inclusion of non-compete provisions has become more
| common across all levels of employment and all job
| categories. The vast majority of US workers will sign
| these agreements. That cultural trend makes it (a) easier
| for employers' legal counsel to manage any issues raised
| by the minority and (b) more difficult, if not
| impossible, for the minority to negotiate.
| wpietri wrote:
| Yeah, having been in that situation, my thought is that
| negotiation is worth a go, but the real response is
| having a good BATNA. Yet another reason to have savings
| at the 6-months-of-expenses level.
| mustafabisic1 wrote:
| Michael Scott likes this :S
|
| How the turntables ...
| Eumenes wrote:
| Lol @ this being an FTC proposal. Whats next, OSHA limiting your
| speech at work?
| gameman144 wrote:
| What do you mean there? Maintaining competition in a labor
| market seems like it's absolutely within the scope of trade
| regulations.
| Eumenes wrote:
| Why are they suddenly making this decision in 2023? Seems
| like something congress should change.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Congress is rapidly becoming a failed institution. They
| have gradually outsourced their duties to various
| administrative authorities (such as the FTC) to the point
| that the only thing they must do to keep the US running is
| pass the annual budget and raise the debt ceiling.
|
| I think any time an administrative authority or, even
| better, the courts do something that a legislator wants
| done, they breathe a sigh of relief that they don't need to
| spend any of their valuable political capital trying to do
| it themselves. The fact that what someone else does, they
| can also undo, never seems to play into their calculus.
|
| One example:
|
| Well after Democrats were established as the pro-choice
| party, there were periods in which both chambers and the
| presidency were all controlled by the Democratic party. So
| obviously, with pro-life activists agitating to get pro-
| life justices appointed, congress spent nearly zero time
| passing any pro-choice laws.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > congress spent nearly zero time passing any pro-choice
| laws.
|
| What pro-choice federal law do you imagine would have
| substantive effect in the face of what would be (and was)
| necessary for _Roe_ to fall:!a Supreme Court that is (1)
| so dismissive of well-established precedent as to strike
| down the cases establishing abortion as a 14th Amendment
| right (thereby both removing the independent bar to state
| anti-abortion law and removing the enforcement clause of
| the 14th Amendment as a basis for federal law), (2) from
| a faction also opposed to expansive readings of the
| Commerce Clause (thus rendering abortion protection
| grounded in the Commerce Clause unviable).
|
| This isn't like same-sex marriage where Congress has a
| separate, less factionally controversial in bounds,
| Constitutional grant of power (in the Full Faith and
| Credit clause) to act under.
| jessaustin wrote:
| Throwing out a simple "states may not restrict abortion
| except in the following ways" federal codification passed
| by Congress (in e.g. 2009) would have taken a lot more
| justification than overruling a previous court decision.
| The latter was a "whoops we changed our minds" and the
| former would have been more of a "only one branch of
| government counts and legislative ain't it!" Perhaps
| there are five ethically bankrupt justices serving now,
| but I can only count three, and it would have been good
| to uncover the others sooner rather than later.
|
| Besides, if you truly have so little faith in our
| institutions (congratulations on paying attention!), why
| bother working with them at all? It soon will be time to
| do something else.
| adventured wrote:
| This is both something I support (a huge win for labor), and it
| will accelerate the tech giants shifting work overseas to save
| money (incomes will rise as labor is able to more freely act to
| take advantage of opportunity, big tech will have to pay more for
| the same labor; to offset, they'll attempt to offshore more
| aggressively).
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| Those "tech giants" already have huge presences in California,
| where noncompetes are already illegal.
| simplotek wrote:
| Noncompete clauses for workers is the most anti-american, anti-
| free-market policy anyone could pull. If workers aren't free to
| switch to better jobs and at the same time are left to fend off
| for themselves them the economic system starts to resemble
| feudalism.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Yes, it's always been an obvious anti-trust concern. Contracts
| in restraint of trade should not be enforceable.
| [deleted]
| donatj wrote:
| > anti-free-market policy
|
| I go back and forth on that. It seems like the free market
| ideal would be to allow them and if people didn't like them
| they wouldn't sign them. No one telling anyone what to do.
|
| It certainly hasn't panned out that way though.
| cryptonym wrote:
| Depends on your definition of "free". Market that favour free
| competition between economic actors?
|
| > No one telling anyone what to do.
|
| Sounds like a good way to get mafia.
| simplotek wrote:
| > It seems like the free market ideal would be to allow them
| and if people didn't like them they wouldn't sign them. No
| one telling anyone what to do.
|
| I've grown to learn that arguments on labour markets and free
| market ideals tend to be very simplistic and, knowingly or
| not, always boil down to victim blaming.
|
| When we've unemployed and actively looking for a job, if we
| have bills to pay and our budget is tight, our goal is to get
| a source of income as soon as possible. Consequently, we are
| vulnerable for unscrupulous conditions, such as non-competes.
| This does not mean that the job market finds them acceptable
| or encourages them. It just means employees that push these
| abusive conditions upon their new hires are abusing their
| dominant position to exploit workers, specially those in
| vulnerable positions.
| starwind wrote:
| Upvoting cause I agree in principal with where you're coming
| from in the sense that employers and employees should be able
| to bargain in their contracts and include clauses like non-
| competes as long as they square with the public policy of the
| state.
|
| My issue (and probably yours) is the _way_ non-competes get
| handled by employers * Every non-compete I 've signed has
| been sprung on me while filing out paperwork on my first day.
| What am I supposed to? Walk out and be unemployed while I
| look for a new job? * What do I actually get for a non-
| compete clause? Judges routinely rule that continued
| employment is enough consideration for near- _anything_
| including non-competes. But if some companies don 't have
| non-competes, to me that isn't true consideration. Me signing
| a non-compete that isn't worded in this-for-that like
| standard contract clauses should be should be treated as a
| gift on my part by the courts that can be revoked * Many
| states have restrictions on non-competes but most non-
| competes for national companies are boilerplate and often too
| broad. Combine this with a mandatory arbitration agreement
| and employers are doing an end-run around state labor laws
| either through arbitration or just strong arming employees
| horsawlarway wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power
|
| The idea is well known for hundreds of years, but here's a
| particularly salient quote for your line of thinking.
|
| ----
|
| "In so far as the reduction of costs of production and
| distribution thus achieved is reflected in reduced prices,
| society as a whole ultimately benefits from the use of
| standard contracts... The use of contracts has, however,
| another aspect which has become increasingly important.
| Standard contracts are typically used by enterprises with
| strong bargaining power. The weaker party, in need of the
| goods or services, is frequently not in a position to shop
| around for better terms, either because the author of the
| standard contract has a monopoly (natural or artificial) or
| because all competitors use the same clauses. His contractual
| intention is but a subjection more or less voluntary to terms
| dictated by the stronger party, terms whose consequences are
| often understood only in a vague way, if at all."
|
| F Kessler, 'Contracts of Adhesion--Some thoughts about
| Freedom of Contract'
| bumby wrote:
| Workers have mechanisms to balance that power. E.g.,
| forming a union, which could ensure the contract is more
| fair. I don't know what to make of the fact that they don't
| use them.
|
| In your opinion, is there a reason why something like a
| union couldn't be used to negate or modify non-compete
| clauses?
| jpadkins wrote:
| transaction costs & bundling effects.
|
| Basically non-compete negatives for the worker don't
| outweigh the costs & downsides of forming a union -for
| just this issue-. Forming a union, negotiating,
| membership, etc all have transaction costs. Also unions
| come in a bundle with negative effects too (corruption,
| forced to go along with decisions where you are in the
| minority opinion, etc).
|
| So if there was a super light weight union that only
| focused on non compete, then maybe it could level
| bargaining power. But since unions have a cost and come
| with downsides, it's not used in practice today.
| ericmay wrote:
| You are right, they do. But in practice it doesn't
| materialize. The other problem with "just create a union"
| besides the risk involved and inequality of bargaining
| power in _starting_ a union in the first place is that
| you typically create a bureaucratic institution which has
| its own drag on economic efficiency. Banning non-competes
| has no clear downside, but does have clear upside. It
| makes sense to allow workers to form unions _and_ to also
| ban non-competes.
| bumby wrote:
| Those are all good points. I would probably push back on
| the idea that economic efficiency is treated as an end to
| itself, rather than a means to an end. There's a tipping
| point where increased economic efficiency isn't
| necessarily a net good for society overall.
|
| I think part of me just laments the fact that previous
| generations took a much bigger risk to form unions and
| modern generations have largely let it fall to the
| wayside.
| ericmay wrote:
| I would agree that treating economic efficiency as an end
| to itself isn't ideal - that creates lots of obvious
| problems. It's probably super efficient to have child
| labor, for example.
|
| > I think part of me just laments the fact that previous
| generations took a much bigger risk to form unions and
| modern generations have largely let it fall to the
| wayside.
|
| I agree, and it's frustrating not just here but in the
| political realm as well. I think the Greatest Generation
| came back from the war and took hold of, and created
| instutitions: universities, the FDA, the CDC, the FAA,
| the MacArthur Foundation (just a random thing that came
| to mind), and importantly unions that protected workers
| rights and living standards. In the political realm I
| recently volunteered as a poll worker - it was a ton of
| fun, truth be told albeit a long day. But many people,
| friends, family, etc. thought it was a bit weird. We
| can't have nice things if we don't take care of them or
| do the hard work of democracy (or unionization, or
| maintaining valuable institutions) if we don't _actually
| do it_.
|
| I'm not sure where this apathy and angst crept in, but I
| bet suburbanization and social media helped create and
| subsequently accelerate it to the point where we have
| some serious problems that need to be addressed.
| bumby wrote:
| > _suburbanization and social media_
|
| This is interesting. Can you expand on the how you think
| this changed the overall sentiment of civic
| responsibility?
| ericmay wrote:
| I'm being flippant and I can expand more, but I'd say it
| amounts to this:
|
| _I sure hope there is parking at the protest_
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > It seems like the free market ideal would be to allow them
| and if people didn't like them they wouldn't sign them.
|
| This only works with a robust social safety net where a
| worker can have _no_ job and still be ok. Otherwise you 're
| usually going to be choosing the lesser of several evils when
| it comes to employment contracts.
| rubyn00bie wrote:
| No. Well at least in capitalism, that is a big no. There are
| no barriers to entry or exit the market in "real" capitalism
| (which no one has or has seen). This includes non-competes as
| it does any other barriers which distort the market.
|
| But none of that matters when most people still don't
| understand profit vs economic profit.
| benrbray wrote:
| They should be legal, but expensive. If it is so valuable to
| companies that their workers not leave to work for
| competitors, they should be required to pay 100% salary for
| the non-compete period.
| Conan_Kudo wrote:
| I think Maryland does this?
| gusgus01 wrote:
| There are a lot of requirements that need to be met to
| make non-competes enforceable in MD, eg must meet salary
| bar, geographic location and duration must be specified,
| etc.
|
| But I don't think it requires paying the employee during
| the non-compete time.
| simplotek wrote:
| > they should be required to pay 100% salary for the non-
| compete period.
|
| I'd argue that falls way short of being useful and still
| screws over employees.
|
| People switch jobs because they get better offers, and
| being forced to not only forego better offers but also get
| stuck with the same income while your offers get taken away
| from you hardly seems something that's in the worker's
| interests. In fact, it looks an awful lot like plain old
| unemployment benefits.
| Moissanite wrote:
| How about:
|
| If you get a written offer from company B while working
| for company A under a non-compete, A must either:
|
| - Allow you to leave unopposed
|
| - Keep you in your current role by negotiating a more
| attractive offer
|
| - Pay the value of offer B to put you on gardening leave
| for the non-compete period or 12 months, whichever is
| longer, and also compensate B for their recruitment costs
|
| Would never happen, but it would be amusing to watch CEOs
| pitch a fit about it on Twitter.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| The market isn't free if you're not allowed to work/compete
| in it.
| Klinky wrote:
| I agree, absolute freedom doesn't mean a desirable outcome
| will occur for individuals or society, or that freedom even
| remains the defacto standard. Free markets are often a vacuum
| waiting for a bully to fill & exploit.
| bern4444 wrote:
| No, individuals have far less market power than institutions
| and businesses.
|
| Especially since health care is tied to employment.
|
| It's a privileged position if you can 'just say no' to a
| company that has non compete clauses - the majority of
| workers cannot.
| a4isms wrote:
| > the free market ideal
|
| I don't think that's the free market ideal. Let's switch away
| from employers vs. employees and ask, "Would an ideal free
| market allow companies to collude to fix prices? Would an
| ideal free market allow consortiums of companies to set up
| exclusivity contracts with vendors to block competition from
| entering the market? Would an ideal free market allow
| companies with profits in a monopoly to run other businesses
| at a steep loss to prevent competition?"
|
| "Freedom from regulations" is a very thorny problem, it
| rarely leads to what people imagine are "free" markets.
| alistairSH wrote:
| _...the most anti-american..._
|
| I dunno, they seem pretty spot on for the US.
|
| In the US, "free market" generally means one of two things... 1
| - a fictional market with no externalities and perfect
| information symmetry. Ayn Rand fans think it's real, but it
| only exists in an ECON-101 textbook.
|
| 2 - code for "rules for thee, not for me" as said by the
| billionaire class. Or, really anything that keeps them rich and
| the rest of us beholden to them for basic life necessities.
|
| Edit - I prefer a phrase like "functioning market" to "free
| markets". Or maybe "fair market"? Not sure. The current labor
| market in the US is dysfunctional, at least when considering
| the share of increased productivity seen by the working classes
| (vs business owners).
|
| Edit2 - changed "perfect information asymmetry" to "perfect
| information symmetry"
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| > perfect information symmetry
|
| FTFY. I believe that is what you meant to see or
|
| > perfect, no information asymmetry
| rqtwteye wrote:
| Totally agree. "Free market" usually means that the big guys
| can do whatever they want to do including suppressing
| competition. "Competitive market", "Functioning markets" or
| "fair markets" would be much better goals.
|
| We should especially work on reducing information asymmetry.
| Big examples are salary negotiation and US healthcare. There
| we have parties (employers, hospitals, insurances ) that have
| almost all information and then the employees/patients that
| have almost no information. The old rule is that whoever has
| the least information in a negotiation will lose.
| ballenf wrote:
| Basically agree, but what we're increasingly facing in the US
| is growing barriers to entry to compete with behemoths in the
| form of an increasingly complex tax and regulatory structure
| which just isn't compatible with free market principles still
| applying to how those behemoths treat employees.
|
| In short, we have quasi state-sanctioned hegemons that have
| undue negotiating power.
|
| There are two solutions: nerf the barriers or buff the
| workers through more targeted regulation. There's no single
| regulatory body that can do the former, so the only option
| left is the latter.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Totally agree. If the problem under consideration is
| "corporate behemoths", then this is just nibbling at the
| edges. Which is better than nothing, but we can/should do
| much more.
|
| But, if the problem is the much smaller/simpler "remove
| barriers to job changes", this is a pretty significant
| change in policy. Not as significant as divorcing medical
| coverage from employment, but still pretty big.
| petechapman wrote:
| > economic system starts to resemble feudalism.
|
| I've long been a proponent that capitalism is not just about
| the economy but is instead a larger force more akin to
| feudalism.
| lambdasquirrel wrote:
| Which is exactly why the oligarchs (of the non-tech world) will
| fight tooth and nail to preserve it.
|
| I think we'd see Biden get assassinated, literally or
| figuratively, before this would go through.
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| The state where all the oligarchs live - NY - doesn't
| explicitly ban them but treats them as a joke in court.
| [deleted]
| anon291 wrote:
| It's already illegal in many states
| Kalium wrote:
| CA, ND, OK, and DC seem to be the ones of note. A slew of
| other states have thresholds under which non-competes are
| invalid, but above which they are. Washington's, as an
| example, are here: https://lni.wa.gov/workers-
| rights/workplace-policies/non-com...
|
| Those thresholds mean most software engineers are subject
| to non-competes.
| ghaff wrote:
| Aspects of non-competes are not enforceable in some places
| --and enforcement may require payments to the ex-employee
| in others (e.g. MA). But some non-compete conditions are
| generally enforceable even in CA as I understand it (e.g.
| if you sell a business, you can't set up shop the next
| street over and contact all your former customers). But
| they're not illegal as far as I know.
| anon291 wrote:
| > if you sell a business, you can't set up shop the next
| street over and contact all your former customers
|
| The article as about non-compete _for workers_. Non-
| competes for M &As are not mentioned.
| ghaff wrote:
| The FTC is specifically proposing a carve-out for selling
| a business. So it is mentioned. The parent made a blanket
| statement about non-compete legality.
| malandrew wrote:
| I would say that this issue is the lack of consideration for
| the duration of the non-compete. If a company is willing to pay
| me my full salary for the entirety of the non-compete, they
| seem reasonable. That said, it should still be something that's
| optional.
| giantg2 wrote:
| There are many things that still resemble feudalism. Per capita
| tax, property tax, conservation easements on deeds, zoning,
| etc.
|
| I'm not saying these things are necessarily good or bad. Just
| saying that most laws around income, taxes, and land have their
| roots in feudalism. And of course the ruling class still make
| themselves well to do off of the hard work of their subjects,
| just not to the same degree as kings. And yes, I know, people
| today have "choices" via voting. Even if those choices are
| between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich without the bread.
| simplotek wrote:
| > There are many things that still resemble feudalism. Per
| capita tax, property tax, conservation easements on deeds,
| zoning, etc.
|
| Nonsense. Contributing back to society doesn't even register
| as a concern when your employer can force you to not have any
| alternative to work for him under his term, and apply harsh
| penalties to you and your loved ones if you step out of line.
| These nonsensical anarchist tropes only come in play to pull
| the focus away from the one-sided social arrangement between
| employers and employees in the US which his highly
| exploitative and outright resembles feudalism.
| giantg2 wrote:
| You're doing a lot of personal attacking and not much
| explaining.
|
| How is what I said "nonsense"? Do you not see that if the
| government decides to zone your land as conservation so you
| can't build on it that is one sided? Or if they use eminent
| domain. Even if it's in the best interest of _society_ it
| 's certainly one sided for the affected individual. And if
| they decide not to comply, you can bet the punishments will
| be much harsher than a non-compete.
|
| You see, in this example society and company can be largely
| interchangeable - a group of people imposing something on
| an individual. Yeah, sure, most of the time society is
| acting in everyone's best interest. However, you have to
| remember that isn't always the case, such as with salvery
| or segregation. There are still injustices today.
|
| If you reread my original comment, I never said those
| activities were good or bad, merely that many of our laws
| have their historic roots in feudalism. In many cases,
| those activies can be applied to either good or bad ends.
| There are examples of eminent domain being abused, and
| others which have provided benefits to society and
| generously compensated the owners. The important tie in to
| feudalism is that in either case the government is the one
| who owns the land while the "owner" holds the title of
| deed. You can hold the land as long as you abide by the
| rule of the government. Violate that rule (not paying
| taxes, use it for committing criminal activity, violate
| zoning) and they can take that land back, fine you,
| imprison you, etc.
| seneca wrote:
| Your reply is nonsense much more than the one you're
| replying to. Voluntarily entering a contract with bad terms
| has a lot less in common with feudalism than heavy handed
| government does. It's fine that you prefer the
| authoritarian government, but it doesn't change what
| feudalism was.
| Nomentatus wrote:
| FWIW, and not meant as a contradiction: while (talking
| Britain here particularly) many were still literally
| slaves under Feudalism (not serfs) and others Villiens
| (serfs tied to a property - the root of the once-classist
| word villain); there were also a great many free people
| taking contracts under bad terms, if only because it's
| easy for Lords to collude re wages for servants, etc,
| etc.
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| "Voluntarily" is doing a lot of work there. There is a
| huge power imbalance between employers and unemployed
| people looking for a job, especially as they may face
| bankruptcy and homelessness if they go too long without
| income.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Still less of a power imbalance than talking about the
| government. Let's not forget that the government is the
| one who enforces those non-competes. So you're really
| only talking about one subset of the government
| authority.
|
| I think non-competes for workers should be banned. But
| I'm just saying there are other more feudalistic examples
| (good or bad) that exist.
| cmurf wrote:
| One of the FAANGs tried to get me, as an independent contractor,
| to sign a non-compete that exactly described my business. And
| they wanted a multi-million dollar indemnification for work that
| amounted to 2+2=4. As in, no one owns the work result, it's a
| discovery of facts about how the world works. At first they
| suggested I needed to sign the agreement before they'd pay my
| invoice, but then quickly paid it and nixed further work planned.
| I was not going to sign something so blatantly lopsided. Not
| everyone is in a position to do that though.
| neycoda wrote:
| Wow, that's a big deal. While NCCs I've signed have generally
| looked fair, I've seen a few lives destroyed by them. When
| somebody has expertise in a career in a certain field, and leaves
| a company, they shouldn't be punished for continuing on with
| their expertise in another company, even their own. This is
| called competition. It shouldn't be stifled. Stealing trade
| secrets is one thing, but competing in a field should be
| regulated by companies that don't wanna compete.
| chunk_waffle wrote:
| Press release from the FTC: https://www.ftc.gov/news-
| events/news/press-releases/2023/01/...
| vsskanth wrote:
| This is a big deal if they can pull this off and I'm very
| impressed with the FTC being proactive and doing something about
| it.
|
| Noncompetes are a huge incentive for companies to prevent
| employees from being paid their true market value for their
| skills, especially true for those who are very specialized and
| only few employers can make use of their skills.
| spamizbad wrote:
| Happy to see this. Unfortunately, the business community has
| completely abused these, with companies like Jimmy Johns
| requiring its minimum-wage employees to sign non-competes.
|
| My state sued them over it and won:
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jimmyjohns-settlement/jim...
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I agree that noncompetes are bad, but the FTC declaring it
| without a congressional mandate seems deeply questionable.
| ffggvv wrote:
| too bad people's brains can't process stuff like that. they can
| only do a single level of "do i agree with the outcome" and not
| whether or not its actually legal or sets a bad precedent. or
| god forbid, think what powers that would give their political
| opponent when they take power.
|
| student debt was another one. whether or not you agree with
| forgiving it, it's deeply disturbing for the president to
| knowingly do something unconstitutional and do an endrun around
| congress' power of the purse. With the hope that no one has
| standing to challenge it
| comte7092 wrote:
| The FTC has a congressional mandate (otherwise it wouldn't
| exist), the only argument is whether this falls within the
| mandate they've been given.
|
| The FTC claims non competes undermine competition, which is
| within their mandate, and honestly not that tough of an
| argument to make.
| Arrath wrote:
| Is such a move not one of the purposes of these agencies
| staffed by (supposedly) experts and run by appointees?
| Legislature is so dysfunctional that the House can't elect a
| speaker at this very moment, and who knows if such a measure
| would even see the light of day in committee let alone get to
| the floor if the lobbyists got wind of it.
|
| If the lawmakers take issue with the ruling they can issue a
| mandate to roll it back, no?
| ffggvv wrote:
| no. they have specific laid out bounds with which they can
| operate in. it's deeply dangerous and disturbing for them to
| try to exceed that. especially because they aren't elected.
| they don't get to just exceed those bounds and wait for
| legislature to issue a ruling to roll it back. it's quite the
| opposite.
|
| its the equivalent of if the tsa started trying to pat you
| down before you got in your car. and then saying its okay
| because congress can just roll it back.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| The problem is, the courts may decide to kill it off _before_
| Congress gets out of its gridlock and approve or deny it, as
| many other regulations have been. Executive decrees or
| questionably legal actions of government agencies are
| fundamentally bad - but have become commonplace and a
| necessity of life since Congress is fundamentally broken.
|
| And at the core, the problem is that the US' political system
| unlike everyone else's system does not enforce that the
| executive has a parliamentary backing. That provides a lot of
| perverse incentives that historically were only prevented by
| a basic code of ethics and conduct - but since the Obama
| days, open obstructionism has become acceptable and a target
| in itself in politics.
| hannasanarion wrote:
| Courts overturning regulations like that is exceedingly
| rare. The doctrine of chevron deference means that, in the
| absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it is the
| prerogative of executive agencies to interpret their own
| mandate as they wish.
| camgunz wrote:
| 100%, plus the Commerce Clause is super powerful. I
| wouldn't put it past this Court to take a whack at it,
| but its powers are broad.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| They have been using the major question doctrine to toss
| regulations lately though, which it appears to me they
| made up out of whole cloth.
| prottog wrote:
| > Executive decrees or questionably legal actions of
| government agencies are fundamentally bad - but have become
| commonplace and a necessity of life since Congress is
| fundamentally broken.
|
| Two wrongs don't make a right. Everyone involved should
| remember that the US is a federation of fifty states that
| share sovereignty with the federal government, and that
| nothing stops the various states from enacting their own
| noncompete bans in their better-functioning state
| legislatures. They can even do that in cooperation with
| other states, in order to accomplish the goal in a
| harmonious manner; see the Uniform Commercial Code for an
| example.
|
| I don't see gridlock in Congress as an example of it being
| fundamentally broken. I see it working as intended, since
| only few matters have such broad agreement among the people
| in all fifty states that Congress should decide on it for
| the whole nation. In fact, the fewer things decided on in
| that fashion, the better for the country as a whole.
| duped wrote:
| > They can even do that in cooperation with other states
|
| This is actually super interesting in that Article 1.
| Section 10 suggests this requires Congressional approval.
|
| I'd also that the US is a de jure federation of
| independently sovereign states, whereas we are a de facto
| central government with weak provincial governments.
| States cannot act independently or as a peer to the
| federal government or with each other, and state
| sovereignty has been eroded since the ratification of the
| Constitution.
|
| Debating whether or not Congress or the States should
| make these laws is purely academic. 250 years of history
| has shown that the only way for meaningful change to be
| enacted anywhere is for it to be done everywhere, by
| Congress, with the support of the Executive, and without
| a meddling Court to nullify it. If we lived in a country
| that you're hypothesizing about, we would still be
| segregated.
| prottog wrote:
| > This is actually super interesting in that Article 1.
| Section 10 suggests this requires Congressional approval.
|
| The UCC is not an interstate compact in the sense of
| Article 1 Section 10. They're merely the same code that
| each state chose to adopt, with no legal ability for any
| other state to question if one state chooses to deviate
| from it in part or whole. It absolutely does not require
| Congressional approval. Interstate compacts are more like
| treaties that states make with each other.
|
| You're absolutely right that state sovereignty has been
| steadily eroding, and I posit that this is to everyone's
| disadvantage. As in your example, just because states'
| rights were once used to champion the evil cause of
| slavery then later Jim Crow, does not mean that the whole
| concept of states' rights is wrong.
|
| Besides, tort and contract laws are historically the
| primary domain of state law. I don't see why the US
| Congress has to be the one to define it for everyone.
| duped wrote:
| > You're absolutely right that state sovereignty has been
| steadily eroding, and I posit that this is to everyone's
| disadvantage.
|
| The evidence suggests otherwise. When states wield their
| power on rights, it's usually against the interests of
| their people until the federal government forces them to
| stop by removing their power to do so. That doesn't mean
| the federal government is without issue, but it is the
| entity designed to protect liberties.
|
| I don't think this is a simple case of tort that could or
| should vary between states. It's about the freedom of
| individuals to choose who employs them and protecting
| them from those with power. The existence of this as a
| state law would only serve to exist in opposition to
| states that don't, to the detriment of their citizens.
| prottog wrote:
| > The evidence suggests otherwise. When states wield
| their power on rights, it's usually against the interests
| of their people
|
| States decriminalizing pot, for one, would be an example
| of state law trying to broaden liberties that federal law
| restricts. Or Massachusetts legalizing same-sex marriage
| long before the US Congress did anything about it. Or
| even at a smaller level, San Francisco city officials
| doing so before the state of California did.
|
| There's plenty of examples where a more local decision
| went in furtherance of liberties than a more distant
| decision, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that
| politicians become more enlightened and virtuous the
| higher up in the federation they go.
|
| > The existence of this as a state law would only serve
| to exist in opposition to states that don't, to the
| detriment of their citizens.
|
| I'm not sure I follow. I think it's perfectly fine to let
| the fifty laboratories of democracy play this out,
| keeping the locus of control as close to the people as
| possible. The people of California have shown that the
| lack of noncompetes doesn't necessarily impede commerce
| or progress; the people of other states may learn from
| that and follow, or decide otherwise. And if those states
| that keep enforcing noncompetes do end up doing poorer
| for their people, they will change the law, or vote with
| their feet.
| lovich wrote:
| The FTC believes this is part of their congressional mandate as
| per their interrogation of Section 5 of the FTC act[1]. If I
| recall correctly they were enforcing this under one legal
| theory previously that the Supreme Court struck down so I
| presume they have come up with a new legal theory.
|
| [1]
| https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/20080...
| solomatov wrote:
| IANAL, but the US federal law roughly consists of USC, i.e. US
| code written by congress, and CFR, code of federal regulations,
| written by executive branch of the government. They can't write
| anything they want, only using powers given to them by congress
| in USC.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| The FTC does have a congressional mandate for administrative
| discretion.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| Would prefer this came from Congress rather than the FTC, because
| I can see at least two different ways this could get sunk from
| the FTC:
|
| 1) The process gets stalled from rollout until 2024, at which
| point a Republican comes into power, appoints new FTC head, and
| they roll it back.
|
| 2) Companies sue, and SCOTUS rules that this exceeds FTC
| authority.
|
| But I'll freely concede that there is no way such a bill would
| _ever_ make it through Congress.
| MajimasEyepatch wrote:
| Such a bill could make it through a Democratic Congress with a
| large enough Senate majority. Unfortunately we don't have that
| right now.
| Spivak wrote:
| I have to believe that some, if not most, Republicans would
| go for a bill like this. A bill that's "freedom-from", costs
| nothing, is pro-worker while not being pro-labor, you get
| free talking points for "see you don't need unions."
| charcircuit wrote:
| Would this also block noncompetes that block you from creating a
| competitor to where you work or prevent double employment at
| competing companies?
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| If they look to California's noncompete ban as an example,
| leaving your company to compete with them would be fine, but
| double-employment could still be restricted (because they can
| just fire you).
| treis wrote:
| Definitely one of those obviously broken things that should be
| stopped. Whatever legitimate usage they theoretically have in
| practice the vast majority do not protect against a bona fide
| company risk.
| legitster wrote:
| My understanding is that most non-competes in the US are not
| enforceable in the first place. So while I think there are
| situations where non-competes are valid, I think it would be
| pretty safe to make a rule that says, "if you are not prepared to
| actually take an employee to court to enforce non-compete, you
| should be willing to go to court to defend it."
| kevstev wrote:
| The problem is that the threat of litigation is enough to make
| them essentially enforced. Sure you could go to a lawyer that
| says this isn't worth the paper its printed on, but either you,
| or maybe your employer, is now going to have to fight this out
| in court.
|
| This is not theoretical. A few years back, my wife, who is in
| ad sales, had very deep relationships with certain companies.
| These people had become her friends, we vacationed with them.
| She took a job at AOL, which at the time held many properties
| like Engadget, Joystiq- there was a whole host of sites that no
| one had realized on the surface were owned by them, but they
| had a decent sized media empire at the time. She had to sign a
| non-compete saying that she couldn't call on anyone she called
| on at AOL for a period of 2 years. She joins, and smashes her
| goal. However, about 3 months in, there was a re-org, she was
| let go, probably for making too much, and got some paltry
| severance.
|
| She asked to be released from the non-compete. They said no. We
| lawyered up. He said straight out that he had represented AOL
| employees before, and they fight these things tooth and nail.
| He said we would probably win, but it would cost tens of
| thousands of dollars, and be a cloud over our head for at least
| the next year or two. He was just being brutally honest with
| us. We ended up not going that route.
|
| It took her several years to recover. She had to take some jobs
| at kind of shitty companies because no one wanted to touch her
| with a non-compete like that, and most of her value was in the
| relationships she brought to the table. AOL essentially got a
| book of new business for the cost of a few months salary and
| commission. Its absurd.
|
| My last company also tried to put an onerous non-compete on me-
| they only wanted to pay me my base salary which was a fraction
| of my total comp. They wouldn't even define who their
| competitors were. I fought against it hard. I was then labeled
| "difficult" by HR and what had been a bit of a rocket ship of a
| ride up there all of a sudden came to a stop- I stayed for
| another 2 years there, but it became clear there was a glass
| ceiling above me.
|
| Non-competes in any form need to go away. This is restraining
| the US economy from achieving its potential by reducing labor
| mobility.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > A few years back [...] She took a job at AOL
|
| That's gotta be more than "a few years".
| kevstev wrote:
| This was 2015ish? Right before they turned into Oath. AOL
| existed for a lot longer than anyone realized- and actually
| operated more like a hedge fund buying media properties
| with funds from people who were still subscribing to what
| was left of the online service. Millions of people,
| literally still paid the fee, many thinking it was the only
| way to keep their email address.
| mindvirus wrote:
| It really does seem to me that the simplest solution would be to
| require non-competes to be paid at the maximum of the past ~N
| years total earnings (and benefits value), with a minimum of say
| $100k/year.
| rajeshp1986 wrote:
| Does anyone know if this would retro-actively applied to
| employees who signed the non-compete contracts?
| dang wrote:
| Recent and related:
|
| _FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete
| restrictions_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34254183 -
| Jan 2023 (165 comments)
| svillar wrote:
| Does that mean engineers working at FAANG no longer will be
| subject to noncompetes?
|
| Amazon is known for enforcing non competes on employees
| (especially AWS employees) who leave to join the competition.
|
| Their CTO has been vocal about this on Twitter and a quick Google
| search will reveal a lot more details.
|
| What about job offers that require employees do waive away some
| rights and agree to arbitration as the only avenue to resolve a
| labor/employment dispute?
| EchoReflection wrote:
| Depaywalled snapshot: https://archive.vn/nLiSq
| tchock23 wrote:
| [Put this in another thread but adding it here since I didn't
| realize it was a duplicate thread]
|
| My Dad was forced to retire early as a network engineer after the
| small (5 person) RSA consulting shop he was working for actively
| threatened his livelihood with a non-compete. No one in the
| industry would touch him because of how aggressively and
| proactively the owner of the shop was defending the non-compete.
|
| I offered my financial resources and network to help him fight
| it, but he was nearing the end of his career and just didn't have
| the energy to fight. He now delivers dry cleaning at $15/hr just
| to get out of the house.
|
| Non-competes can't die fast enough.
| nscalf wrote:
| My understanding was that this was one of the big competitive
| advantages for California. I could be totally off, but wasn't a
| reason to work in California that you're not getting stuck with
| hostile noncompetes?
| boppo1 wrote:
| I recently had to deal with some onerous IP clauses that were
| essentially a non-compete. Fortunately they agreed to drop it.
|
| But for the future: Any advice on finding a good IP lawyer who
| knows software/media? Lots of IP lawyers around here happy to
| charge me $300/hr, not so many I'm confident understand the
| creation of videogame code & assets.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-05 23:01 UTC)