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

351–360 of 421 posts

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

#351

Post by sammydavis »

Declanomous wrote: post #260
falcolas wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As most readers here would agree And yet we are still confronted with NDAs just to listen to "Facebook for Farmers" pitches. Perhaps it's better to say those entrepreneurs are afraid of their implementers leaving with all of the domain specific knowledge; believing that it would allow them re-create the product and outmaneuver the entrepreneur. Of course it's never really that easy, but so few fears are rational.

I work at an organization with about 75 employees, and I'm the only person who can program. Half the time I go out for drinks with coworkers, someone corners me and wants to tell me about this awesome idea they have. Unfortunately, they can't tell me anything because I haven't signed an NDA yet. So they spend a few hours being coy, and I spend a few hours trying to politely decline. It's always an iPhone app too. I'v…

That was so on the money. This happens to me too. My financial advisor and his friend want me to build them an iphone app. Please save me.

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

#352

Post by whybroke »

tristor wrote: post #139

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…

>I don't understand why there's so many people in the comments defending non-competes

They are the large number of libertarians who believe all regulation is bad under all circumstances. Mental contortions follow to justify it in this case.

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

#353

Post by RIMR »

elcct wrote: post #154
michaelmrose wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is sensible but its a lot easier just to make non competes go away entirely.

In the end if there is no compete clause in your contract, you can just not take it...

That is a good strategy, but it will just cause unemployment to rise.

Though, I wouldn't mind keeping my own "non-termination agreement" on hand so that if I am asked to sign a non-compete, I can ask them to sign my contract too.

After all, if they think it's fair that I shouldn't be able to work for another company doing the same thing, it should be equally fair that they can't replace me with another worker doing the same thing.

So yeah, I'll sign your non-compete, so long as you agree that you cannot terminate me without invalidating it.

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

#354

Post by googletazer »

jnicholasp wrote: post #348
imglorp wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As most readers here would agree, ideas are worth almost nothing but executing on them is the value.

The idea that ideas have no value is prima facie ridiculous. The reason we aren't just a slightly odd species of chimpanzees is that we developed the ability to produce ideas. Ideas are the only thing of fundamental value to us as an intelligent species. The statement that ideas don't matter, only execution matters, can only apply among sets of trivial ideas that don't change the landscape. Yes, if you want to make F…

>Ideas are the only thing of fundamental value to us as an intelligent species. I'm sorry but you're wrong. Its not ideas that are the only thing of fundamental value... information might come close.

Ideas + experimentation to validate them + implementation is where its at. An idea by itself without execution is a fantasy.

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

#355

Post by losteverything »

ghaff wrote: post #300
losteverything wrote: post #274

Tragic story of a business. You decide if it was stolen. Happened a few years ago to a client friend. Husband wife owns a florist. Has for decades in a county fourth highes per capita income in us. Built a nice life but it was time to retire and sell the business. They did not own their building. New landlord buys building ( shop in nice main street area.) raises rent to outrageous amount. Too much to run the busines…

In other words, a landlord decided not to renew a lease and opened their own business. On the one hand, it's a bit sleazy to attempt to cash in on the previous shop's customer relationships. But I have trouble calling this "stolen." Presumably, if it were a Starbucks that were opened instead, it wouldn't be so objectionable even though the net effect on the previous store owners is largely the same.

The couple is devastated.

I call it sleazy. But wonder why someone didn't let them see that outcome could happen.

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

#356

Post by necessity »

tristor wrote: post #139

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…

It's not coercive, it's agreed upon. But some people are just itching to restrict other's freedom of association, I get it.

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

#357

Post by GavinMcG »

dominotw wrote: post #234

Ban-ing things is like writing explanatory code comments instead of working out why that code was confusing/hacky in the first place. Unfortunately, people would rather welcome big brother govt into their lives than work on fixing the real problem.

What is the real problem, in this case?

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

#358

Post by ensignavenger »

jandrese wrote: post #282
omouse wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the logical conclusion. Have you ever seen a large corp and how inefficient they are? The only reason they can remain large is because they can afford to buy politicians and legislation to keep their competitors small. Big Corp creates new regulations to protect their business, the most clear examples are in telecommunications and the music/movie/copyrightable industries. If we removed more regulations tod…

It doesn't really matter how inefficient you are if you have the cash to buyout any potential competitors before they have a chance to threaten your bottom line. In a purely capitalist society wealth (power) accumulates at the top. Money creates money so whomever starts out with the most money tends to win. This is why highly capitalist societies turn into Dubai, with an ultra rich ruling class and a serf/slave class…

But then everyone would create competitors so you would buy them out, and eventually you would run out of money.

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

#359

Post by __derek__ »

YCode wrote: post #252
imglorp wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As most readers here would agree, ideas are worth almost nothing but executing on them is the value.

There is an argument to be made that a larger organization might be able to take your idea and run faster than you with it. In practice though, most of the time your idea is too small or too risky to be on the radar of those organizations. A bit like how when you wake up a dream you had makes perfect sense until you try to describe it to someone else.

That's the core of the innovator's dilemma.

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

#360

Post by ghaff »

losteverything wrote: post #355
ghaff wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, a landlord decided not to renew a lease and opened their own business. On the one hand, it's a bit sleazy to attempt to cash in on the previous shop's customer relationships. But I have trouble calling this "stolen." Presumably, if it were a Starbucks that were opened instead, it wouldn't be so objectionable even though the net effect on the previous store owners is largely the same.

The couple is devastated. I call it sleazy. But wonder why someone didn't let them see that outcome could happen.

I agree the thing carries something of a smell and is unfortunate. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much salable value there is in a typical florist (or indeed in many retail businesses) even if it's throwing off a reasonable income stream for the owners that would lead someone to buy an existing business, rather than just starting fresh.
Post reply on HN