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

#381

Post by Kalium » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 8:09 PM UTC

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…

The reason we aren't just a slightly odd species of chimpanzees is that we developed the ability execute on ideas. Otherwise we're low-hair primates thinking about maybe fire.

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

#382

Post by cmdrfred » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 8:53 PM UTC

mancerayder wrote: post #302

cmdrfred wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how it works in the US, most of the time a non-compete is entirely unenforceable.

In New York, the fear that drives some of us [edit:] to [not fight against] non-competes [on an individual level] is the threat of expensive litigation. If I get sued by my employer, it might cost us the same but I can't afford the legal costs as much as they can afford them. In New York State, commonly it's expected that the courts will enforce a year of non-compete, even if the contract is for more. It's nice to sa…

I agree. This is sort of like a lot of constitutional issues. The forth amendment is clear, you can't take cash off of people without charging them with a crime. The problem is you have to be wealthy to fight it.

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

#383

Post by JamesBarney » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 9:08 PM UTC

saosebastiao wrote: post #339

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.

Most readers here would agree, but then again most readers here benefit from that perspective and tend overvalue their work relative to the creativity and research behind it. Both are necessary. Sure, there are delusional business types that think that their idea is gold and are willing to offer you 3% if you do all the work. But you are suggesting the exact opposite and it is just as delusional. Silicon Valley is a…

In hindsight what would be some ideas that you think would be worth lots of money? Most of the unicorns I know about and are aware of what they do don't boil down to a great idea.

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

#384

Post by koheripbal » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

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…

Sales oriented companies derive a majority of their accounting book value from their client list. When a salesman leaves, they can solicit clients and thereby the value of the company can rapidly diminish. Fair is fair, right? What's best for the customer is best for the economy, right?

...well, now imagine an industry where sales oriented companies have essentially no stable book value. They cannot get loans securitized by the value of their book, and therefor cannot invest in growth or innovation. In the end it is a race to the bottom.

A reasonable balance exists whereby employees are bound by a 2-3 year non-compete clause that prevents them from stealing clients. Markets are still competitive within 2-3 years, and since everyone has these clauses, employee value is retained.

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

#385

Post by koheripbal » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

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…

Sales oriented companies derive a majority of their accounting book value from their client list. When a salesman leaves, they can solicit clients and thereby the value of the company can rapidly diminish. Fair is fair, right? What's best for the customer is best for the economy, right?

...well, now imagine an industry where sales oriented companies have essentially no stable book value. They cannot get loans securitized by the value of their book, and therefor cannot invest in growth or innovation. In the end it is a race to the bottom.

A reasonable balance exists whereby employees are bound by a 2-3 year non-compete clause that prevents them from stealing clients. Markets are still competitive within 2-3 years, and since everyone has these clauses, employee value is retained.

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

#386

Post by dmourati » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 10:32 PM UTC

pinot wrote: post #363

dmourati wrote: post #52

Massachusetts has realized that its current legislation allowing for non-competes sniffles innovation. https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/silicon-valley-keeps-winni... http://news.wgbh.org/2016/06/29/politics-government/deleo-pl...

In 2013 I turned down a job in Philadelphia, with a company who was headquartered in Boston. They wanted me to sign a 1yr non-compete with the stipulation that I wouldn't work for a company sold similar products within a +/- 30% wholesale cost of their product. After two trans-continental flights, interviews etc, I said no because of the NC. The recruiter flipped over it. He basically yelled at me "you're going to co…

I'm glad you did that. It shows principle. You may have been able to negotiate it out but the fact that they wanted it shows you a good deal about the company character.

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

#387

Post by aaronchall » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 11:16 PM UTC

neogodless wrote: post #210

I'm not sure if you came here for anecdotes, but my very first full time web developer position had a non-compete clause. After 2.5 years, I moved to a new company about 15 miles away for a roughly 20% raise. Some time into this job, I ended up doing some work for a client that had left my previous employer. I reached out to the previous employer because I needed something changed on the server (they still managed ho…

Yeah, I think that's what I'm going to do going forward. If there's a non-compete in an otherwise viable contract, I'm going to strike it, sign, and if it's of real value to them and they still want me, they can pay me to agree to it.

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

#388

Post by jaredklewis » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 11:20 PM UTC

omouse wrote: post #277

jaredklewis wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory, I see nothing wrong with them. Non-competes ask employees to give up something extremely significant: freedom to work there they choose. Which I have no problem with if they get something significant in exchange. Let's an employer wants some insurance that I won't go work elsewhere because there is going to be a long training period or what not. I expect significant compensation for that, ideally in the fo…

> I guess the problem in practice is that employees just sign their employment contract no matter what it says, which is unfortunate. In other words, the problem is that they are coercive . Employees usually sign because the company has more legal power and can be intimidating or because they could be homeless.

If companies had that much leverage we would all work at minimum wage. I've seen non-competes in contracts with 150k+ compensation. Getting 150k to do something is not coercion, it's an exchange. As for people becoming homeless, I think welfare should be the duty of the government, not individual corporations.

I agree that contracts can be intimidating, but they shouldn't be. Non competes, like most things, can be spelled out in totally ordinary English that anyone can comprehend. Rather than having to create 1 law against every possible employee-adverse thing an employer might put in a contract, I would much prefer a law that mandates employee contracts be easily understood by an average employee.

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

#389

Post by jaredklewis » Wed, Oct 26, 2016, 11:21 PM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #291

jaredklewis wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory, I see nothing wrong with them. Non-competes ask employees to give up something extremely significant: freedom to work there they choose. Which I have no problem with if they get something significant in exchange. Let's an employer wants some insurance that I won't go work elsewhere because there is going to be a long training period or what not. I expect significant compensation for that, ideally in the fo…

>Let's an employer wants some insurance that I won't go work elsewhere because there is going to be a long training period or what not. I expect significant compensation for that, ideally in the form of a large signing bonus, maybe 50k per year of non compete. They already have a mechanism for that. It's called a contract - you promise to work for the company for 2 years. Your argument could easily be twisted to supp…

No they don't. At will employment. Anyone can quit any job anytime they want.

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

#390

Post by BeetleB » Thu, Oct 27, 2016, 1:14 AM UTC

jaredklewis wrote: post #389

BeetleB wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Let's an employer wants some insurance that I won't go work elsewhere because there is going to be a long training period or what not. I expect significant compensation for that, ideally in the form of a large signing bonus, maybe 50k per year of non compete. They already have a mechanism for that. It's called a contract - you promise to work for the company for 2 years. Your argument could easily be twisted to supp…

No they don't. At will employment. Anyone can quit any job anytime they want.

From Wikipedia:

"The doctrine of at-will employment can be overridden by an express contract or civil service statutes (in the case of government employees)."