The case for banning non-competes
slowboring.com
The case for banning non-competes
1–10 of 338 posts
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#2Should be a requirement that, to be enforceable, a non-compete must pay the agreeing employee his salary for the duration of the agreement.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#3My feeling has always been that non-competes are ok as long as it is an entirely separate agreement from employment. For example, you can sign a contract for $100,000 that you won’t work in field x for 2 years. If you decide to work in the field, you give up that money.
The unfair thing is making it just a part of the standard employment contract.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#4Should be a requirement that, to be enforceable, a non-compete must pay the agreeing employee his salary for the duration of the agreement.
Some people might think that was a good deal to travel the world but not everyone. So you're at the peak of your career and you need to take a couple years off at significantly lower total comp (because no bonus/equity).
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#5My state has severely limited non-compete agreements to the point that they’re only narrowly enforceable, if at all.
That didn’t stop one of my previous employers from using non-compete scare tactics against employees. Many of us left in a large exodus when benefits and bonuses were cut and management made a number of other bad decisions.
The company responded by sending remaining employees an e-mail with a list of competitors that they said would be covered by our non-compete agreement. The e-mail implied that if we wanted to leave for one of those companies we needed to get approval from the legal team before we moved, otherwise we might be at risk of being sued.
My lawyer rolled his eyes when I showed it to him and explained that they wouldn’t win due to my state’s laws, but they could try to make my life difficult with legal proceedings if they wanted.
The tactic worked enough to scare some of my old coworkers away from taking job offers at competitors, though. Some others also went into hiding and lied on their LinkedIn profiles to prevent their old employer from finding out they went to competitors.
Having some clear, national guidelines that make non-competes a non-issue would do wonders for situations like this.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#6I believe non-competes and claiming the IP of what employees do in their own time is ridiculous and way out of line. Employers do not own the people who work for them.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#7This is why it’s a little ridiculous to think there could be a “tech hub” outside California. Sure maybe you have a lot of tech jobs in the same place, but that is of no consequence to the people who work them, since they’re all in binding non competes.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#8The absurd part of non-competes is that they want a guarantee of exclusivity on you without a guarantee of paying you for that period of exclusivity.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#9Should be a requirement that, to be enforceable, a non-compete must pay the agreeing employee his salary for the duration of the agreement.
In Germany, a non-compete can only be enforced for up to two years and pays 50% of the last salary (by law).
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#10You don’t exactly need to ban them, but the employees should be compensated during the non-compete period and limit the lenght of the non-compete contract.
In Denmark my employeer can’t make non-compete contract for more that 12 month, during which I’m entitled to 60% of my salery. It’s also only valid within the same field. That is: You can’t jump from Microsoft, developing Windows, to Apple and work on macOS, but you can go to Twitter.