You 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 y…
The case for banning non-competes
21–30 of 338 posts
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#22This 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
#23First, there's the really nasty ones saying "If you ever work here, you can't work for any competitor for X years", and they're clearly abusing of employees, labor, etc. I hope there is a straight up ban on that.
The second kind is "You can't compete with us while you work here". And that is a much more complex beast. Obviously, if I work as a developer making a stock trading app, I shouldn't be making a competing stock trading app after hours.
But my employer does everything. There is no field that my employer is not involved in, somehow. You can guess who they are, probably, or just read my profile. And they say "You cannot do anything that competes with anything we do". Which is everything. Want to make a Sudoku app? That's a game, we do games. Want to do some open source ML library work? We do ML, you can't do ML outside of work (I asked legal that one). And that's ignoring the who-knows-how-many secret un-released projects that might relate.
They don't even tell us "no" anymore. They just say "read the non-compete agreement and do what it says". Basically "do what you like, but if we ever feel like it wasn't right, you're fired and maybe sued".
And when I apply to other companies, they ask "do you have a github account?". No, I've been highly motivated not to.
Edit: eesh, this was a bit of a rant, wasn't it? Apologies for that. But maybe folks have ideas on what to do about it, apart from the obvious.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#24Re: The case for banning non-competes
#25My 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 c…
For most employees, a lost lawsuit means you lose 2 years of your life, get PTSD, and go bankrupt. You might recover legal fees after you've lost the house. Yay!
If you've got a megabuck, you're okay. If you live paycheck to paycheck, you're SOL. If you're a high-income / low-savings immigrant from a low-income country, you're SOL too. You settle. It doesn't matter if they have no case. You settle.
As a footnote, this dynamic does play out re: grad students versus elite universities, under NDA. Source: I know MIT does this from first-hand knowledge, and I have suspicions about a few peer schools.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#26Should be a requirement that, to be enforceable, a non-compete must pay the agreeing employee his salary for the duration of the agreement.
Say you start as a junior at 80k , next year you get an offer for 150k , but you can't take it. You'd end up with a large 1 year resume gap, and losing 70k.
The year of career stagnation wouldn't be worth it.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#27>> The main idea of the non-compete agreement is that employers want to stop people from walking off the job and taking trade secrets to rival companies. If companies weren’t able to secure those protections, they’d need to pay lower salaries, and we’d all be worse off. I don't agree. I think the non-compete is more an acknowledgement that certain people have a higher degree of mastery and understanding of a subject…
Bullshit. If you could fuck off to any of a dozen companies doing similar work, your employee would have to pay you well and give you raises and treat you well in order to compel you to stay, otherwise you would leave.
If employers had a magic button they could press to make it so that those dozen employers are too scared to hire you, or to make it so that you're worried about getting sued if you leave, then you will be more likely to stay at your employee, even if they treat you poorly and never give you a raise.
The non-compete agreement is that button, and making you feel like you're captive and can't do anything about it is the real reason why companies like to mash it. They like being able to mistreat you with impunity.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#28Should 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
#29My 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 c…
My experience is that (1) Most threats like this aren't legally credible (2) That doesn't stop employers from filing (and losing, if not settled) lawsuits. For most employees, a lost lawsuit means you lose 2 years of your life, get PTSD, and go bankrupt. You might recover legal fees after you've lost the house. Yay! If you've got a megabuck, you're okay. If you live paycheck to paycheck, you're SOL. If you're a high-…
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#30Should be a requirement that, to be enforceable, a non-compete must pay the agreeing employee his salary for the duration of the agreement.
I'd still rather they be banned. Say you start as a junior at 80k , next year you get an offer for 150k , but you can't take it. You'd end up with a large 1 year resume gap, and losing 70k. The year of career stagnation wouldn't be worth it.
- Get a Master's degree
- Travel and see the world
- Do consulting
- Take a job in Indonasia
- Teach
- Develop a new open source project
- Etc.
The resume gap / career stagnation is a choice. It's rare that you can have a gap year like this. I totally don't feel bad about paid non-competes.