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

61–70 of 514 posts

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

#61

Post by Alex3917 »

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…

> 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 development.

The general rules that most states use for deciding when non-competes are enforceable aren't that bad. E.g. if you work at a bakery, you're not going to be allowed to open your own bakery two blocks away within a year, but it's fine if you do it a couple towns over. That doesn't seem especially crazy to me.

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

#62

Post by Zigurd »

TSiege wrote: post #3

This is a bigger deal then the title suggests since it appears it would be retroactive and nullify existing non competes > The commission’s proposal appears to address this issue by requiring employers to withdraw existing noncompetes and to inform workers that they no longer apply. The proposal would also make it illegal for an employer to enter into a noncompete with a worker or to try to do so, or to suggest that…

It isn't too unusual for humans to be protected from entering into unjust contracts.

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

#63

Post by horsawlarway »

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power

The idea is well known for hundreds of years, but here's a particularly salient quote for your line of thinking.

----

"In so far as the reduction of costs of production and distribution thus achieved is reflected in reduced prices, society as a whole ultimately benefits from the use of standard contracts… The use of contracts has, however, another aspect which has become increasingly important. Standard contracts are typically used by enterprises with strong bargaining power. The weaker party, in need of the goods or services, is frequently not in a position to shop around for better terms, either because the author of the standard contract has a monopoly (natural or artificial) or because all competitors use the same clauses. His contractual intention is but a subjection more or less voluntary to terms dictated by the stronger party, terms whose consequences are often understood only in a vague way, if at all."

F Kessler, ‘Contracts of Adhesion--Some thoughts about Freedom of Contract’

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

#65

Post by ElevenLathe »

lolinder wrote: post #49
ElevenLathe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good to let agencies make laws if they make good laws. It's bad to let agencies make laws if they make bad laws. The liberal obsession with process is what lets the far right make inroads everywhere, since they don't share it.

My conservative dad said the exact same thing—almost word for word, just reversed—about liberals and process in 2009. I'm inclined to believe that there are groups of every political persuasion who believe the end justifies the means. EDIT: To clarify, I mean that my dad said that liberals will do anything to accomplish their goals while conservatives play nice. The same idea but in reverse. This is why I think that…

That's the left's problem IMO. The right knows that their game is to gain power and use it to achieve goals. The liberal left (which is most of it if we're honest) thinks they are just trying to gain enough power to make everyone play by the rules. The problem is that there is not enough power in the world to make your enemies bargain in good faith.

Anyway this derailed from the OP which is about some new rules that might slightly tip the power in the employer-employee relationship in favor of employees. As an employee (leftists like to say "worker" but it means the same thing), this would be good for me.

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

#66

Post by [deleted] »

mumblemumble wrote: post #57
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…

[deleted]

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

#67

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Zigurd wrote: post #52
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

My point is all ownership is a legal concept. Congress can abridge many property rights, including real estate, and the only thing keeping them from going further is the custom enshrined in our Constitution.

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

#68

Post by zozbot234 »

TSiege wrote: post #3

This is a bigger deal then the title suggests since it appears it would be retroactive and nullify existing non competes > The commission’s proposal appears to address this issue by requiring employers to withdraw existing noncompetes and to inform workers that they no longer apply. The proposal would also make it illegal for an employer to enter into a noncompete with a worker or to try to do so, or to suggest that…

The old common law barred non-compete agreements as contracts in restraint of trade. It was superseded by statutory anti-trust regulation and the creation of government agencies like the FTC. If you think the latter doesn't have power to regulate these matters, we fall back to the old common law and non-competes are still unenforceable.

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

#69

Post by alistairSH »

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.

...the most anti-american...

I dunno, they seem pretty spot on for the US.

In the US, "free market" generally means one of two things... 1 - a fictional market with no externalities and perfect information symmetry. Ayn Rand fans think it's real, but it only exists in an ECON-101 textbook.

2 - code for "rules for thee, not for me" as said by the billionaire class. Or, really anything that keeps them rich and the rest of us beholden to them for basic life necessities.

Edit - I prefer a phrase like "functioning market" to "free markets". Or maybe "fair market"? Not sure. The current labor market in the US is dysfunctional, at least when considering the share of increased productivity seen by the working classes (vs business owners).

Edit2 - changed "perfect information asymmetry" to "perfect information symmetry"

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

#70

Post by lolinder »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #65
lolinder wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My conservative dad said the exact same thing—almost word for word, just reversed—about liberals and process in 2009. I'm inclined to believe that there are groups of every political persuasion who believe the end justifies the means. EDIT: To clarify, I mean that my dad said that liberals will do anything to accomplish their goals while conservatives play nice. The same idea but in reverse. This is why I think that…

That's the left's problem IMO. The right knows that their game is to gain power and use it to achieve goals. The liberal left (which is most of it if we're honest) thinks they are just trying to gain enough power to make everyone play by the rules. The problem is that there is not enough power in the world to make your enemies bargain in good faith. Anyway this derailed from the OP which is about some new rules that…

No, I'm saying that my dad gave me this exact lecture in 2009 but in reverse—he said that the problem with the right is that they play nice while the liberals will do anything it takes to take power and accomplish their goals. Literally the exact same thing that you're saying but in reverse.

I think what it actually is is that there are factions within each group who match your description and it is hard to see the faction in your own group because you agree with them.

Post reply on HN