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

31–40 of 421 posts

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

#31

Post by dredmorbius »

nickff wrote: post #18
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…

Anything that stands in the way of a worker finding and securing their best employment, in terms of both productivity and play, is both anti-competitive and anti-worker. The fact that noncompetes also prevent effective technology transfer between companies (which is how innovation happens) means they're also anti-innovation.

On the last point, see generally J. Doyne Farmer and John C. Holland who've done significant work on innovation and the processes by which it occurs. You'll find presentations from both on YouTube, as well as publications. Both are/were associated with the Santa Fe Institute (Holland died in 2015).

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

#32

Post by nickff »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #27
nickff wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a company "pay for the privilege" of preventing you from transferring their trade secrets without being able to enforce non-competes?

With a severance package. Non-competes should not be allowed to last any longer than the severance package. P.S. Non-competes should have nothing to do with trade secrets; those should be covered by an NDA.

So the company should keep paying an employee's full salary without any guarantee that the employee won't 'quit' the severance to work for a competitor? This is basically guaranteeing that nobody who has valuable knowledge can be fired for cause or laid off.

NDAs are nice, but there is no way to know whether a trade secret has been transferred to a competitor (if the competitor keeps their secrets secret).

The other problem with allowing NDAs but disallowing non-competes is that it provides a huge loophole, where businesses can classify all non-public information as trade secrets, thereby preventing the former employee from implementing any competing system (which will inevitably contain some non-public process from the previous employer).

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

#33

Post by drawkbox »

nickff wrote: post #18
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…

I know this, when I get a non-compete it makes me not want to work on that project.

It is like a reverse market regulation against workers that are bringing the productivity and skills to the company.

Company: "Hey come here and build us this thing that makes us capable in this area, and when you are done you can't go on building things for other people". It almost seems like a fatal attraction or overly obsessed/attached owner/girlfriend.

Non-competes are a kick in the nuts really to put it bluntly. You'll know the feeling when you get one. It is closer to a company trying to own a skilled worker rather than a partnership.

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

#34

Post by nickff »

dredmorbius wrote: post #31
nickff wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Anything that stands in the way of a worker finding and securing their best employment, in terms of both productivity and play, is both anti-competitive and anti-worker. The fact that noncompetes also prevent effective technology transfer between companies (which is how innovation happens) means they're also anti-innovation. On the last point, see generally J. Doyne Farmer and John C. Holland who've done significant…

What if the prospective employee is presented with two offers:

1) No non-compete, long hours, and low salary

2) Non-compete agreement, short and flexible hours, and high salary

If this is a possible scenario, would the ban on non-competes be anti-worker?

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

#35

Post by greglindahl »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #27
nickff wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a company "pay for the privilege" of preventing you from transferring their trade secrets without being able to enforce non-competes?

With a severance package. Non-competes should not be allowed to last any longer than the severance package. P.S. Non-competes should have nothing to do with trade secrets; those should be covered by an NDA.

And in California, it has to be a full salary, not $1.

I'm not sure why nickff is mentioning trade secrets, when that's a separate issue, covered by NDA.

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

#36

Post by aikah »

jomamaxx wrote: post #17
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. No…

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

If the employee violates the IP then sue him for that. No need for non-compete agreements. If you're worried the employee will steal your clients then you're not giving your clients a good deal at first place, and the employee shouldn't be prevented from working with your clients. This is a free market. Non compete agreements are completely anti-freedom of both enterprise and work.

> 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.

Then the burden of proof should lie with the previous company, there shouldn't be any possibility of preemptive clause within the former contract. If it's clear corporate secrets were leaked then sue. If you don't want your employee go work somewhere else then compensate him, that's the problem here , most of the time there is no compensation.

It doesn't matter how much R&D was created. That's the role of patents to deal with that thing.

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

#37

Post by dredmorbius »

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.

Among other reasons, Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, but not intrastate commerce.

Congress might, say, prohibit noncompetes across state lines, but would have a harder time making the case for a noncompete prohibition within a given state. Perhaps not impossible.

OTOH, there are Federal standards for labour in the US under the NLRA -- National Labor Relations Act.

Lay understanding of law.

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

#38

Post by throw_away_777 »

nickff wrote: post #21
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.

How would a company "pay for the privilege" of preventing you from transferring their trade secrets without being able to enforce non-competes?

If a company is preventing me from working, and doing so is actually important to the company above and beyond a tool to keep me working for them, they can afford to pay a salary for the duration of the non-compete. The fact that companies aren't willing to do so reveals that the companies want non-competes so they don't have to pay market wages and to restrict freedom of movement of employees. It is a terrible standard to have non-competes for at-will employees.

I have actually refused a job offer because the terms of the non-compete were so one-sided for the employer. The contract had things like one-way attorney fees, applied everywhere in the US for a year, wasn't limited to what the company actually worked on, and other employer favored terms. This was for at-will employment, and apparently I was the first person to refuse the job offer due to the contract. I wish more people would refuse to sign such biased contracts, as it stands companies can get away with the practice because too many workers allow them to do so.

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

#39

Post by greglindahl »

laichzeit0 wrote: post #9

I just signed one of these ridiculous clauses because pretty much everyone is just slapping this into their contracts now. Law needs to catch up on this one and fast. I like the idea of making non-compete enforceable only if you can prove malicious intent. Similar to how tax works. If onus is on the tax payer to prove that if you buy something and sell it at profit you must prove that the _intention_ was not to turn…

Move to California, or draw a line through it and see what happens.

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

#40

Post by throw_away_777 »

nickff wrote: post #32
bryanlarsen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a severance package. Non-competes should not be allowed to last any longer than the severance package. P.S. Non-competes should have nothing to do with trade secrets; those should be covered by an NDA.

So the company should keep paying an employee's full salary without any guarantee that the employee won't 'quit' the severance to work for a competitor? This is basically guaranteeing that nobody who has valuable knowledge can be fired for cause or laid off. NDAs are nice, but there is no way to know whether a trade secret has been transferred to a competitor (if the competitor keeps their secrets secret). The other…

No, the point is the non-compete keeps the employee from working for a competitor, so the employer pays the salary to prevent the employee from working for a competitor. The employer chooses to either pay the salary of the employee or free them to find work elsewhere. Why is it fair that an employer can fire someone or lay someone off and keep that person from working for a year?
Post reply on HN