Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

Post by ryandrake » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 12:58 AM UTC

dunpeal wrote: post #56

woolvalley wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Full pay would be your tax return saying what the full amount of compensation you got from the employer. Stock rewards, bonuses, etc are all reported from specific employers. Your highest year in your previous years of employment with the employer is the year I would chose. And add other benefits like health insurance and such. Basically your still 'employed' on garden leave with the company until the non-compete per…

OK, I think full taxable income is a nice suggestion. But it will require legislation, i.e. probably will never happen. Moreover, the point of the article is that NCAs are a long-term drag on the economy. If the main reason there's SV in California and not near Boston, is the lack of NCAs, then that seems like a huge cost and a drag on the economy as a whole.

Post by ghaff » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 1:03 AM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #89

dmurray wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's a thousandth of a percent chance that some company is going to try to ruin your life over it, and if they try there's another thousandth of a percent chance they'll succeed. But if they do, it is _terrible_. Perhaps you're exaggerating for effect, or perhaps you really don't understand the probabilities involved. But this is many orders of magnitude less likely than you getting killed by a meteor strike. E.…

I was indeed being hyperbolic but hey, I just learned about meteor strikes. My intention was poorly portrayed but to try again, in all my years I've never known anyone who has been sued over a non-compete, a good chunk of those people have been software developers and most software developers sign non-competes these days, usually in overly broad topics (and I do know a bunch of people who have continued to work withi…

Post by mehrdadn » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 1:12 AM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #76

dunpeal wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually an engineer :-) I used "smartass" because it's a move that superficially seems clever, but is actually completely futile when you look at the broad picture - as my comment shows. I don't know if us engineers have "low social status", but we certainly don't have as much negotiating power as some of us may fancy, certainly not against a huge mega-corporation.

All other things being equal, businesses will hire the candidate that they can potentially abuse before the one that may righteously push back. So if you are one who would negotiate the terms of a non-compete, you will not even get the opportunity until all those who will just blindly sign it have been given the chance to do so. The smart-ass part is signaling that you're less-abusable before the decision is made on…

Post by ghaff » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 1:16 AM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #91

ghaff wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always given individuals as references, not companies. Not sure the degree to which anyone's ever checked.

I have always given specific individuals as references as well. The companies I was referencing were ones where the management had a policy of agreeing not to give references. Again this is super weird because the only thing that is an issue is giving a negative reference so a lack of a positive reference could be interpreted as a negative reference... thus, not giving everyone a positive reference should be a simila…

Post by your-nanny » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 1:19 AM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #23

your-nanny wrote: post #2

non competes are incompatible with free Enterprise, and incompatible with social democracy. yeah send them back

A lot of people seem to think that "free enterprise" means that companies can do whatever they want and that that's somehow always good for employees. Same for "Right to Work".