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

111–120 of 421 posts

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

#111

Post by nickff »

greglindahl wrote: post #107
nickff wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You said "My first piece of evidence" and now "I didn't provide any evidence at all". Given all the downvotes you've gotten, I recommend that you sharpen your debating tactics. You'll probably get better engagement that way.

Ah I'm sorry, I got confused thinking that we had gone back to my comment on taneq's last parent of this branch.

I attribute the downvotes to the unpopularity of non-complete clauses on HN. In addition to that, most of the libertarian and right-leaning users seem to be in North America, so I can count on less sympathy from ~4-12 GMT. It is also possible that my writing has gotten substantially worse in the last few hours, but it seems unlikely that I am being more rude or unfair than I normally am.

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

#112

Post by Silhouette »

elcct wrote: post #105
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…

Non compete is fine if you were paid full salary for the entire time.

Which full salary, the one you got before, or the one you could make as a skilled software developer moving to a much better gig with a rival employer willing to offer a more attractive deal?

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

#113

Post by Steeeve »

I've heard of two or three people in my lifetime that had a company try to enforce a non-compete. Two were during a Microsoft/Google fight, and one was in the late 60s with a scientist.

Has anybody around here been sued after leaving a company due to a non-compete clause?

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

#114

Post by 1812calif »

Sacho wrote: post #102
Gibbon1 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As a counterpoint, it allows companies to give you a higher salary in exchange for #2 and 3. Or alternatively, if non-competes are the norm, it would allow a business to provide lower salaries for the incentive of no non-compete clause. The argument whether to ban non-competes should be rooted in the practical applications of the clause. Highly skilled, in-demand workers have the power and financial safety to negotia…

iff it's a higher salary in exchange for #2 and 3

i suspect the employer / (healthcareinsurer if in US) imbalance is really the core issue.

In medical research ethics, informed consent acknowledges the imbalance. I think e.g. CA unenforcement of non-compete does a similar job.

(I am also a worker bee and benefit from non-enforcement, so take my input for the electrons they're based on.)

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

#115

Post by alkonaut »

jomamaxx wrote: post #60
aikah wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 enter…

"It doesn't matter how much R&D was created. That's the role of patents to deal with that thing." I'm beginning to think none of you have ever worked in companies that actually produce IP. First off - that's not what patents are for. Patents protect publicly known information - not trade secrets. And they don't do it very well. There are very few things you can defend with a patent. What companies are concerned with…

> but companies deserve the right to protect their IP

Sure. What I have in my head isn't the companies IP though, it's my experience.

"IP" is often confused with "the collective experience of your employees". IP is physical artifacts such as code, drawings, patents etc. The memory of having written that code is not part of the IP, nor is the capability of doing it again in a fraction of the time.

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

#116

Post by tajen »

aikah wrote: post #16

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.

> with 0 compensation

I don't agree compensation would be any useful. In France non-compete agreements must be compensated proportionnaly.

Example: My company prohibited me from working with the customers on the whole territory of France for a duration of 3 months, paid at 1/3 of the salary per month. The real mean clause is that they can decide whether to apply it or not, and they can tell you on the day you leave. Therefore: They save, except when the employee gets hired by the customer, in which case they only have to spend 33% of the salary for 3 months to prevent you from working.

Last point, in France, Company-to-Employee non-competes are restricted, but Company-to-Company are not. Which makes things hard for consultants.

So don't fall in that trap: Asking for a compensation will only seem fair on the surface. Require your government to drop non-competes altogether, and both for employees and B2B contracts.

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

#117

Post by jacquesm »

Sacho wrote: post #102
Gibbon1 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As a counterpoint, it allows companies to give you a higher salary in exchange for #2 and 3. Or alternatively, if non-competes are the norm, it would allow a business to provide lower salaries for the incentive of no non-compete clause. The argument whether to ban non-competes should be rooted in the practical applications of the clause. Highly skilled, in-demand workers have the power and financial safety to negotia…

I'd be ok with #2 and #3 if the company would continue to pay the employee for the full duration of the non-compete.

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

#118

Post by throw_away_777 »

Sacho wrote: post #102
Gibbon1 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As a counterpoint, it allows companies to give you a higher salary in exchange for #2 and 3. Or alternatively, if non-competes are the norm, it would allow a business to provide lower salaries for the incentive of no non-compete clause. The argument whether to ban non-competes should be rooted in the practical applications of the clause. Highly skilled, in-demand workers have the power and financial safety to negotia…

The issue is, as you mentioned, the employer does have an unfair negotiating advantage. Most employees don't have the luxury of paying lawyers (or the knowledge that this is something they should do) to look at every non-compete offer and explain the contract. Having just gone through the process, lawyers are very expensive and time consuming. Talking to people about it reveals that most people don't really understand the issue either, believing wrongly that non-competes are not enforceable. Many companies also try to hide non-competes until after you have accepted the job offer. Companies in contrast have a much easier time hiring a lawyer, as they can offer a standard non-compete to each of their potential hires. So this is an area where it makes sense for the government to step in and protect workers.

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

#119

Post by throw_away_777 »

Steeeve wrote: post #113

I've heard of two or three people in my lifetime that had a company try to enforce a non-compete. Two were during a Microsoft/Google fight, and one was in the late 60s with a scientist. Has anybody around here been sued after leaving a company due to a non-compete clause?

Non-competes are usually enforced indirectly. Most companies will ask if you have a non-compete, and a lot of them will just refuse to hire you if you do.

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

#120

Post by alkonaut »

aikah wrote: post #36
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…

> 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 enter…

> give away ABC Corps. most valuable asset.

Maybe ABC corp was mistaken, and their most valuable asset was that employee and not just the model parameters he struggled for years to optimize?

Post reply on HN