White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by throw_away_777 » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 8:35 AM UTC

nickff wrote: post #110

throw_away_777 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stand…

The fact that companies are unwilling to pay you to avoid harming them after you no longer work for them proves very little in my view. I understand that a non-compete could reduce potential future earnings, but prospective employees should take that into account, as you seem to have done. I commend you for looking out for your long-term self interests, and agree that more people should carefully scrutinize their emp…

The problem is that there is an asymmetric bargaining power between companies and potential employees. I had a family friend who is a lawyer I could talk to, most people don't have that luxury and don't have the time to educate themselves about non-competes. Talking to people reveals most (wrongly, for most states in the US) think non-competes are unenforceable. Companies use non-competes to avoid paying a fair market wage. The fact that companies resist paying severance in accordance with non-competes reveals the true motive companies have for non-competes - to keep workers at their company while paying below market rates. In situations where companies don't have unequal bargaining power, but still want non-competes (top level executives), these contracts almost always include a large severance package.

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

#122

Post by cgag » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 8:37 AM UTC

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 also don't understand how using company property justifies ownership of intellectual work. What about using a company pencil should give you the right to any sketches I produce with it?

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

#123

Post by alkonaut » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 8:38 AM UTC

jomamaxx wrote: post #57

aikah wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What they don't want you dong is taking all their IP, walking off and passing it onto a competitor. Bullshit, that's what NDAs are for.

"Bullshit, that's what NDAs are for." Totally false and completely naive. Most knowledge and know-how is not explicit - they are often learned. For example - suppose you worked at Nuance, and helped develop their new AI/Neural Network speech recognition system. Everything you know about Speech + AI you learned from them, in that language specific setting. If you went to work on Google's new Speech Recognition, which…

> If you went to work on Google's new Speech Recognition, which is AI-based - it would basically be impossible not to pass on know how and relevant knowledge. The application-specific skills are basically IP.

If Nuance wants to pay me to not work for google for a long time - fine. As long as the non compete is fully paid that's fine.

Without pay from my former competitor, it must of course be completely within my rights to go to Google and develop in 1 year what took me 10 years at Nuance. That's what my experience does - helps me do the same thing quicker. That experience, and nuances "Trade Secrets" are more or less the same thing. Nuance paid me for years of failed attempts and dead ends. Google pays me (more) to not repeat them.

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

#124

Post by throw_away_777 » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 8:41 AM UTC

nickff wrote: post #100

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.

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.

That is how it should work in theory, but not how it works in practice. In practice companies can use their better understanding of the true value/cost of non-competes to exploit workers. If there exists a large pool of workers who are willing to sign non-competes because they are not well informed about them, than in order to get a job you will have to sign a non-compete (or move to CA).

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

#125

Post by yomly » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 8:56 AM UTC

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…

Lack of wage growth (and accompanying erosion of quality of life) is already a major issue.

Why would you suggest that the employee pay a cost for accepting a fair workers agreement (no non-compete clause)? At least suggest that salaries be raised for people on non-competes.

The value the employee is generating through this IP is always going to be considerably (orders of magnitude) larger than whatever their salary is - the company can afford to pay them more.

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

#126

Post by raverbashing » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 8:58 AM UTC

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…

One thing I suspect (in SW), the strongest the company wants to protect "their IP" the most BS it is usually

I've seen people talk with a straight face how they think their company invented the use of IFNDEF/DEFINE for C .h files

And parent comment only goes to show how there are cattle that supports barbecues

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

#127

Post by dagss » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 9:04 AM UTC

cgag wrote: post #122

ekianjo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 also don't understand how using company property justifies ownership of intellectual work. What about using a company pencil should give you the right to any sketches I produce with it?

When the company purchases equipment for use by you-as-employee, and you use that equipment for your own company spare time, how is that fair?

A pencil is so cheap and undetectable that it makes a poor example, but if you stole my paint and painted a picture I would expect some compensation?

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

#128

Post by bkor » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 9:07 AM UTC

joshAg wrote: post #19

simple solution: all workers must be paid full salary and benefits for the entire term of the non-compete agreement.

Law in Belgium allows an anti competition clause only in certain cases. When it does apply, the employer still has to pay half of the salary for the length of anti compete clause. There's still a limit on the length (12 months), various limitations on when it applies, etc.

See http://nl.workpocket.be/2/3/het-concurrentiebeding/

Netherlands also has various limitations on anti compete clauses. Generally, they're not valid: http://www.lbv.nl/actueel/wet-en-regelgeving/146-het-concurr.... Since 2015 they only apply to full time employees and there should be a very good business reason. Meaning: it should not apply to everyone, at most a limited amount of people.

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

#129

Post by elcct » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 9:08 AM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #112

elcct wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is a good question. I think if you were offered better salary, the former company should either match it or let you take new contract.

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

#130

Post by omnimus » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 9:10 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #84

jomamaxx wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> If you work at DWAVE for 5 years and learn everything you know about Quantum Computing there - and go to Google to work on Quantum Computing - then there is basically a 100% chance that you are passing on 'know how' and 'trade secrets' - otherwise - Google would not hire you. That isn't trade secrets, it's experience.

Exactly. The views on this are so twisted in US. People actualy believe that its the company giving away everything. Truth is if youve worked on quantum computers for five years youve generated so much of this know how. Youve invested ideas, energy, time - its you givin away knowledge not company.