141–150 of 421 posts
Great! ...as long as this doesn't just mean nonsensically narrow rules like the new Illinois law, which only applies to low wage workers (< $13/hour).
Most laws are a reaction to something stupid, and in this particular case it's a reaction against sandwich shops requiring low-wage workers to sign non-competes.
It actually seems borderline malicious and evil to me. Modern day slavery.
I don't understand why there's so many people in the comments defending non-competes. They have literally no value to society, or to individual employees. They are a tool of restrictive coercion to stifle an employees freedom of movement in the job market. Trade secrets, IP, secret sauce: covered by NDA and IP assignment agreements Client lists, contract terms, sales strategies, reported metrics, financials: covered…
> The only thing a non-compete does is say that Employee A cannot work in their chosen field for some period of time after they are fired or quit. In doing so it offers no consideration or compensation typically in the contract. Many (if not most) EU countries require compensation for non-competes to be valid (usually at least 30% gross), and the non-compete can still be challenged in court if e.g. it applies to too…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Better example: borrowing a rular and giving it back, using a company car but paying for the fuel and a service yourself, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't understand why there's so many people in the comments defending non-competes. They have literally no value to society, or to individual employees. They are a tool of restrictive coercion to stifle an employees freedom of movement in the job market. Trade secrets, IP, secret sauce: covered by NDA and IP assignment agreements Client lists, contract terms, sales strategies, reported metrics, financials: covered…
To go meta for a moment: I think that this sort of statement exposes a flaw that many of us have in debates. It's related to the "argument from ignorance" fallacy, but is not exactly the same thing.
I take it as one of my priors that people at news.yc are intelligence.
When lots of intelligent people argue for X, and X makes no sense at all for you, you should ponder with some real seriousness that perhaps N intelligent people are not insane, but, instead, you are missing something.
In this case, you say "They have literally no value to society".
This is not an argument. This is a conclusion, or an axiom.
Let me explain why I think non-competes are a good thing:
1) deontological: freedom to contract is always a good thing. It is a human right, and government has no legitimate moral power to remove that right from people.
2) Hayekian / information theoretic: I have local knowledge regarding both my costs and my benefits from signing a non-compete contract. Government legislators and bureaucrats, at some great remove, has almost no knowledge of either my costs or benefits.
3) pragmatic (overlaps #2): perhaps I am desperate to break into career field X and would pay almost anything to get in. Or perhaps my skills are much lower than other competitors. What can I offer employers that my peers can not? My willingness to sign a non-compete. Or perhaps I know that I will be moving in three years, and thus a geographic non-compete has no downside to me. Etc.
> you have literally no incentive to support non-competes...There is no rational basis...mystic powers
Your entire approach here is quite arrogant.
Consider, for a moment, that the other people on news.yc are not idiots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So now what happens when a competing firm starts "offering" artificially high salaries just to force the current employer's costs up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Um, that's covered by an NDA--Non-Disclosure Agreement. Those are generally QUITE enforceable, even in California and often last for 3 to 5 years. Non-compete is quite different.
Your comments about NDA's are not quite right. NDA's do not capture a lot of the essential issue. Pragmatically speaking, it's nary impossible to work in some fields, and then move to a competing firm without passing on know how or trade secrets. Even the 'manner of approach' to a problem, while it may not be a trade secret, is basically a core part of the 'true IP' that is developed by a company. Using DWAVE as an e…
Intellectual property is a bit of a misnomer it has very little in common with property of the standard sort and the burden falls upon you to explain why we ought to create greater artificial scarcity for imaginary property.
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…