Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 421 posts

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#11

Post by ekianjo »

Animats wrote: post #4

Note that this is being proposed as something states should do. Federal legislation is not being proposed. Worst case would be Federal legislation which was weak and pre-empted state legislation, weakening California's ban. California employment law prohibits non-compete agreements for employees, and has since 1872. California also prohibits any employee agreement which claims employer ownership of intellectual prope…

> California also prohibits any employee agreement which claims employer ownership of intellectual property developed on the employee's own time

I have always wondered how could such a claim on ownership could exist in the first place. This reduces the employee to a mere company slave.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#12

Post by vinay427 »

Animats wrote: post #4

Note that this is being proposed as something states should do. Federal legislation is not being proposed. Worst case would be Federal legislation which was weak and pre-empted state legislation, weakening California's ban. California employment law prohibits non-compete agreements for employees, and has since 1872. California also prohibits any employee agreement which claims employer ownership of intellectual prope…

Please note the typically more important parts with respect to employee ownership:

> "shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either [...]"

I wouldn't expect everyone to visit the source link. I would hate to see incomplete advice (for the sake of brevity, I understand) mislead someone into thinking they can use a company device in any way for something they wish to assert ownership of.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#13

Post by throwaway_exer »

ekianjo wrote: post #11
Animats wrote: post #4

Note that this is being proposed as something states should do. Federal legislation is not being proposed. Worst case would be Federal legislation which was weak and pre-empted state legislation, weakening California's ban. California employment law prohibits non-compete agreements for employees, and has since 1872. California also prohibits any employee agreement which claims employer ownership of intellectual prope…

> California also prohibits any employee agreement which claims employer ownership of intellectual property developed on the employee's own time I have always wondered how could such a claim on ownership could exist in the first place. This reduces the employee to a mere company slave.

> This reduces the employee to a mere company slave.

Generally law enforcement will treat an employee as a slave if a company files any kind of complaint statement against the employee, regardless of how small the company is. Also, former employees have been convicted of violating employee handbooks.

So slave is an apt description.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#15

Post by nickff »

ekianjo wrote: post #11
Animats wrote: post #4

Note that this is being proposed as something states should do. Federal legislation is not being proposed. Worst case would be Federal legislation which was weak and pre-empted state legislation, weakening California's ban. California employment law prohibits non-compete agreements for employees, and has since 1872. California also prohibits any employee agreement which claims employer ownership of intellectual prope…

> California also prohibits any employee agreement which claims employer ownership of intellectual property developed on the employee's own time I have always wondered how could such a claim on ownership could exist in the first place. This reduces the employee to a mere company slave.

I think that the idea behind such employee agreements is that they encourage the sharing of new ideas within companies, as employees will not 'hold the ideas back' to use when they go off and start their own companies.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#16

Post by aikah »

I don't understand how these clauses are even legal at first place. It violates the basic right of freedom of work. You can't have on one end freedom of enterprise but on the other hand no freedom of work for employees. the worst thing is the fact that these agreements usually come with 0 compensation.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#17

Post by jomamaxx »

drawkbox wrote: post #10

Non-competes, the most anti-innovation, anti-skilled worker, anti-free market, anti-business and anti-American thing in working today. Non-competes are protectionism for larger businesses over small/medium businesses. As a freelancer, contractor and self-employed business owner/worker, please make these illegal, tired of these. The worst part about non-competes is they are blanket protectionism usually and up to 2+ y…

From your comments I gather you might not understand the problem.

Were Soft Engs simply to do 'work' then you would be absolutely right.

But in a world of IP ... it's a different story.

Company ABC brings you in, trains you on their know-how and core IP, which took a lot of struggle, $, and R&D to create - then you leave, go to a competitor, and effectively communicate and give away ABC Corps. most valuable asset.

Non-competes can certainly applied far too aggressively, esp. in situations where there is not merit ... but there are definitely cases wherein I think it does make sense.

I'm thinking companies like DWAVE in Vancouver that built the 'first' qubit/quantum computer. The guy spent his whole life developing that tech. It's feasible that Google just grabs up some of the team and internalizes all that work and effort for the price of a few headcount.

It's a real problem in some cases, but worse - very difficult to parameterize.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#18

Post by nickff »

drawkbox wrote: post #10

Non-competes, the most anti-innovation, anti-skilled worker, anti-free market, anti-business and anti-American thing in working today. Non-competes are protectionism for larger businesses over small/medium businesses. As a freelancer, contractor and self-employed business owner/worker, please make these illegal, tired of these. The worst part about non-competes is they are blanket protectionism usually and up to 2+ y…

I agree that non-competes can be inconvenient for some, depending on their business model or career plans, but I am not sure how they are anti-innovation or anti-worker. Is there some evidence that they reduce overall productivity, or any other quantifiable metric?

I am not particularly in favor of or against non-competes as a whole, (though I would be reluctant to sign one,) but they strike me as less invasive than other marketplace restrictions (such as government regulations).

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#20

Post by jomamaxx »

throw_away_777 wrote: post #5

Why can't congress do something about this? Non-competes are clearly terrible for workers, and should at the least be illegal without a severance agreement. If a company wants to keep me from working they should pay for the privilege. Workers also need to start refusing to sign egregiously bad non-compete agreements.

"If a company wants to keep me from working they should pay for the privilege."

They are paying you. You join the company on those terms. If you don't want to join, then don't join.

What they don't want you dong is taking all their IP, walking off and passing it onto a competitor.

It would be extremely naive to not understand that this happens all the time.

It's a tricky and nuanced problem, but it's real.

Post reply on HN