Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 514 posts

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#51

Post by notch656c »

ecshafer wrote: post #21

Non-Competes being legal is only acceptable I think if the worker will continued being paid for the period of the non-compete. I can see reasons that non-competes exist, but those reasons don't really make sense in a world where patents and trademarks also exist. The fact that they are essentially illegal in California, and California's economy works shows that they are unnecessary and also don't hinder technological…

Should be reciprocal if it exists. I.e. if the employee leaves, the company would be barred from hiring anyone else for any remotely similar tasks. Make them taste their own medicine and decide if it's worth it.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#52

Post by Zigurd »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #44
Zigurd wrote: post #42

It's a way of establishing an "intellectual property" claim inside your skull. I put that in quotes because a limited term government grant of monopoly, which is what patents and copyrights actually are, are not "property." There is no property right in that grant of a monopoly. Congress could reset the term of patents and copyrights at any moment, on any terms. That's a much weaker thing than actual property rights.

> Congress could reset the term of patents and copyrights at any moment, on any terms. That's not how actual property rights work. Isn’t it?

No. A bill setting patent or copyright terms to less than what they are now is constitutional. Some might argue the opposite side of that, but I don't think anyone can deny the Framers were wary of the kinds of monopolies monarchs granted, much less did they think a patent is property.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#54

Post by bern4444 »

donatj wrote: post #50
simplotek wrote: post #6

Noncompete clauses for workers is the most anti-american, anti-free-market policy anyone could pull. If workers aren't free to switch to better jobs and at the same time are left to fend off for themselves them the economic system starts to resemble feudalism.

> anti-free-market policy I go back and forth on that. It seems like the free market ideal would be to allow them and if people didn't like them they wouldn't sign them. No one telling anyone what to do. It certainly hasn't panned out that way though.

No, individuals have far less market power than institutions and businesses.

Especially since health care is tied to employment.

It's a privileged position if you can 'just say no' to a company that has non compete clauses - the majority of workers cannot.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#55

Post by vsskanth »

This is a big deal if they can pull this off and I'm very impressed with the FTC being proactive and doing something about it.

Noncompetes are a huge incentive for companies to prevent employees from being paid their true market value for their skills, especially true for those who are very specialized and only few employers can make use of their skills.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#57

Post by mumblemumble »

ecshafer wrote: post #21

Non-Competes being legal is only acceptable I think if the worker will continued being paid for the period of the non-compete. I can see reasons that non-competes exist, but those reasons don't really make sense in a world where patents and trademarks also exist. The fact that they are essentially illegal in California, and California's economy works shows that they are unnecessary and also don't hinder technological…

This is the standard I knew from the trading industry. I would say that, while it does initially seem more palatable, it also has some downsides. One that might be particularly relevant to programmers is that it sets up a structure that functions somewhat like a penalty of 1 year's worth of paid vacation for choosing a new job outside the industry.

I don't have the business or economic bonafides to back this up, but it seems likely to me that such an incentive structure would not serve the benefits of society as a whole, and might become quite damaging were it to become widespread. My own sense is that, with the possible exception of the "you can't take your client sheet with you" style of noncompete that sometimes gets applied to salespeople and hairstylists, non-competes are simply anti-capitalist. Not in some sort of ideological sense, just in a very practical, "This is nothing but a tool for retarding GDP by further concentrating wealth in the pockets of the already-wealthy," sort of way.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#58

Post by wahnfrieden »

ecshafer wrote: post #21

Non-Competes being legal is only acceptable I think if the worker will continued being paid for the period of the non-compete. I can see reasons that non-competes exist, but those reasons don't really make sense in a world where patents and trademarks also exist. The fact that they are essentially illegal in California, and California's economy works shows that they are unnecessary and also don't hinder technological…

workers shouldn't benefit from rising wage markets?

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#59

Post by sieabahlpark »

notch656c wrote: post #51
ecshafer wrote: post #21

Non-Competes being legal is only acceptable I think if the worker will continued being paid for the period of the non-compete. I can see reasons that non-competes exist, but those reasons don't really make sense in a world where patents and trademarks also exist. The fact that they are essentially illegal in California, and California's economy works shows that they are unnecessary and also don't hinder technological…

Should be reciprocal if it exists. I.e. if the employee leaves, the company would be barred from hiring anyone else for any remotely similar tasks. Make them taste their own medicine and decide if it's worth it.

[dead]

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#60

Post by giantg2 »

simplotek wrote: post #6

Noncompete clauses for workers is the most anti-american, anti-free-market policy anyone could pull. If workers aren't free to switch to better jobs and at the same time are left to fend off for themselves them the economic system starts to resemble feudalism.

There are many things that still resemble feudalism. Per capita tax, property tax, conservation easements on deeds, zoning, etc.

I'm not saying these things are necessarily good or bad. Just saying that most laws around income, taxes, and land have their roots in feudalism. And of course the ruling class still make themselves well to do off of the hard work of their subjects, just not to the same degree as kings. And yes, I know, people today have "choices" via voting. Even if those choices are between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich without the bread.

Post reply on HN