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

91–100 of 421 posts

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

#91

Post by DominikR »

flukus wrote: post #88
DominikR wrote: post #85

I wonder what a principled position on this matter would be. On one hand everyone is free to trade freedoms for gains (usually monetary - every contract restricts both parties freedom), but on the other hand you can't trade certain freedoms away that we view as fundamental. Even though I am certainly no proponent of non-compete agreements I cautiously tend towards viewing such contracts as acceptable and valid. You u…

The coercion is usually that you don't know about the non-compete until you walk in and sign your employment contract on day 1. >Contractually expanding it for a mutually agreed upon period doesn't strike me as that much different As long as I'm compensated for that period (a normal wage) then I think it's fair.

> The coercion is usually that you don't know about the non-compete until you walk in and sign your employment contract on day 1.

Okay this is really bad, in the EU country where I live you usually first negotiate and sign the contract, then start working.

But the drawback is that it is really just done this way because the government requires that the business notifies it about your employment before you start working, which is a privacy issue.

I think I'd still prefer it the US way. I'd ask about this before starting to work. (if this isn't a no go)

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

#92

Post by nickff »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #69
nickff wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In my understanding, you can't unilaterally quit the severance to terminate your non-compete.

My understanding is that severance is usually terminated when the former employee accepts a new position; I am not sure how a former employer could prevent the former employee from accepting a position from a competitor without use of a non-compete.

Do you agree that NDAs are flawed in the ways I described?

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

#93

Post by Gibbon1 »

drawkbox wrote: post #25
jomamaxx wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

An NDA would suffice in that case. Not being able to work work in the same field for up to 2 years (non-compete) and not disclosing internal ip, processes, etc when you go work at another company (NDA) in the field are much different. Preventing someone from working in a field and not disclosing or sharing secrets/ip are two different animals. NDAs are useful and I use them myself when contractors work with us, but n…

My first exposure to non-competes was from a guy I did some work for. He was a network firmware/driver guy back in the 80's/90's. Took a six month contract with a European company. After the contract ended his recruiter got him another gig. When the original company found out they threatened to sue him. Because they said he had signed a five year non-compete.

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

#94

Post by golemotron »

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…

Why don't they just make an Executive Order?

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

#95

Post by Gibbon1 »

nickff wrote: post #68
drawkbox wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/att…

You are speaking to emotions, which means I have no way of addressing your concerns, but I will try to highlight why I do not share your conclusions: > "makes me not want" I do not want to agree to many terms, so I do not agree to them; this does not make me want to ban those terms. > "It is like a reverse market regulation" Non-competes are 'like' any other business agreement to me. In any case, I am not sure what a…

The way I look at a job is you get paid three ways.

1. Money.

2. Skills and Knowledge.

3. Career Contacts.

With non-competes a company is trying to screw you out of #2 and 3.

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

#96

Post by nickff »

dredmorbius wrote: post #90
nickff wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You're raising the spectre of artificially nonfungible conditions, and ignoring power differentials between employers and employees, as well as game theory leading to non-optimal equilibria.

I don't understand what you mean when you say that I am "raising the spectre of artificially nonfungible conditions"; I described a possible situation, and asked whether you agreed that it was possible that non-compete bans could be 'anti-employee' per your definitions.

I agree that I am ignoring many things, as this is a limited discussion, and I am only addressing the impact of a law on a single employee, and its ethical ramifications.

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

#97

Post by throw_away_777 »

nickff wrote: post #54
aikah wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it fair that an employee can stop working at their job or commit fraud, then immediately sell all the non-public information they have to a competitor? Then sue if you have proof. What is not fair is to reduce a worker's opportunity to work when he isn't on your payroll.

You can sue people for not working at their job? There are many people who simply stop accomplishing tasks when they want to be laid off or fired. The parent's logic would say that if someone does this, the only way to stop this 'bad employee' from selling all your non-public information is to pay (at least) their full salary indefinitely.

If the company wants to stop you from working, they should pay your salary for the duration they want to keep you from working, not indefinitely. Already most states won't enforce non-competes lasting more than a year. Obviously companies benefit from non-competes, but they do so at the expense of workers. The fact that a company can fire someone on day 2 and not let them work for a year is absurd, but that is how non-competes are written. Once a company fires someone or lays them off, they shouldn't be able to keep that person from working without compensation, and compensation given while the person is employed doesn't count - that is money given for work. If an employee leaving for a competitor really harmed a company, that company can sign an agreement that isn't at-will employment.

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

#98

Post by greglindahl »

nickff wrote: post #87
greglindahl wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can imagine many things, but can you point to any evidence? Many people write blog postings about non-competes; I can't recall a single one where extra money was attached.

If you agree with my supposition that forcing an employee to choose the lower-paying job with bad hours would make the agreement anti-employee, we should look at evidence of whether non-competes are paid for by employers. If you disagree with my supposition, we should address that first, as the rest of the argument depends entirely on that. My first piece of evidence for the proposition that employers pay for non-com…

Sorry, I don't agree with how you approach the entire problem. Labor law exists mainly because there's information asymmetry between companies and employees. You seem to be presuming that there's a free market for labor; that's not the case when there's information asymmetry. Your "evidence" falls apart when there's information asymmetry.

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

#99

Post by nickff »

greglindahl wrote: post #98
nickff wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you agree with my supposition that forcing an employee to choose the lower-paying job with bad hours would make the agreement anti-employee, we should look at evidence of whether non-competes are paid for by employers. If you disagree with my supposition, we should address that first, as the rest of the argument depends entirely on that. My first piece of evidence for the proposition that employers pay for non-com…

Sorry, I don't agree with how you approach the entire problem. Labor law exists mainly because there's information asymmetry between companies and employees. You seem to be presuming that there's a free market for labor; that's not the case when there's information asymmetry. Your "evidence" falls apart when there's information asymmetry.

I think it is well known that there is information asymmetry in every transaction/deal/agreement involving more than one individual; saying that there is information asymmetry proves nothing. There is a highly regulated market for employees, and for employers. I didn't provide any evidence at all; I just asked if you agreed that in certain situations, it was possible for a non-compete ban to be anti-employee.

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

#100

Post by nickff »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #95
nickff wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are speaking to emotions, which means I have no way of addressing your concerns, but I will try to highlight why I do not share your conclusions: > "makes me not want" I do not want to agree to many terms, so I do not agree to them; this does not make me want to ban those terms. > "It is like a reverse market regulation" Non-competes are 'like' any other business agreement to me. In any case, I am not sure what a…

The way I look at a job is you get paid three ways. 1. Money. 2. Skills and Knowledge. 3. Career Contacts. With non-competes a company is trying to screw you out of #2 and 3.

If you think non-compete agreements 'screw you out of #2 and 3", but still want the job (probably) because it is your best chance to get #1, it seems that you are being paid 1 in exchange for 2 and 3. The non-compete ban simply blinds you to the opportunity of selling 2 and 3.
Post reply on HN