U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by dagw » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:29 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #61

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…

if you work at a bakery, you're not going to be allowed to open your own bakery two blocks away within a year

What if you work at Starbucks and want to open your own coffee shop. Is it reasonable that you should not be able to open a coffee shop within two blocks of any existing Starbucks?

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

#112

Post by logicalmonster » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:29 PM UTC

chaoz_ wrote: post #71

Would be interesting to see how contracts in HFT are going to change. From what I heard, when some specialists (e.g. hardware folks) are changing jobs, then the firm is likely to lose an "edge" as competitors will have access to similar technology/knowledge. Garden leave helps to mitigate this effect. If non-competes are banned, then TCs are (probably) going to rise even more.

Is it harder to come up a new idea for a trading strategy or is it harder to actually implement the system to perform those trades?

Not being in that industry, to me it seems like the easiest part is coming up with a new trading idea. The hardest part would seem to be actually implementing it without bugs. Therefore, I'm not sure if noncompete clauses really provide a super-significant amount of value. Even if you left a firm with a super good trading strategy today and wanted to implement it elsewhere, you're still going to have to perfectly re-build it, which is probably not trivial.

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

#113

Post by dkjaudyeqooe » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:29 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #61

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…

Why should employers have any control over your life whatsoever after they're not paying you?

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

#114

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:29 PM UTC

seneca wrote: post #96

simplotek wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are many things that still resemble feudalism. Per capita tax, property tax, conservation easements on deeds, zoning, etc. Nonsense. Contributing back to society doesn't even register as a concern when your employer can force you to not have any alternative to work for him under his term, and apply harsh penalties to you and your loved ones if you step out of line. These nonsensical anarchist tropes only come…

Your reply is nonsense much more than the one you're replying to. Voluntarily entering a contract with bad terms has a lot less in common with feudalism than heavy handed government does. It's fine that you prefer the authoritarian government, but it doesn't change what feudalism was.

"Voluntarily" is doing a lot of work there. There is a huge power imbalance between employers and unemployed people looking for a job, especially as they may face bankruptcy and homelessness if they go too long without income.

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

#115

Post by camgunz » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:30 PM UTC

hannasanarion wrote: post #77

mschuster91 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, the courts may decide to kill it off before Congress gets out of its gridlock and approve or deny it, as many other regulations have been. Executive decrees or questionably legal actions of government agencies are fundamentally bad - but have become commonplace and a necessity of life since Congress is fundamentally broken. And at the core, the problem is that the US' political system unlike everyone…

Courts overturning regulations like that is exceedingly rare. The doctrine of chevron deference means that, in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it is the prerogative of executive agencies to interpret their own mandate as they wish.

100%, plus the Commerce Clause is super powerful. I wouldn't put it past this Court to take a whack at it, but its powers are broad.

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

#116

Post by sebzim4500 » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:30 PM UTC

ericbarrett wrote: post #98

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…

My understanding is that this arrangement is common in finance. However the worker is not given benefits or bonuses during this time. Since private health insurance is massively expensive and bonus comp can be a significant fraction of one's pay in the field, it can still be onerous.

>it can still be onerous

Sure you get paid less than you are used to but you are still getting more than 95% of the population to do literally nothing.

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

#117

Post by snarf21 » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:31 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #61

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…

That seems crazy to me. Why should I have to move to start a business? If I can start a new bakery with no following and run the old out of business, then it seems like the industry was ripe for competition anyway.

I do think it is reasonable for the competes to include not stealing recipes or IP or other capital from the business. Contacts are harder to legislate but there is a difference between remembering your best contacts and contacting them via LinkedIn vs exporting a contact list from your company's Salesforce and using that.

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

#118

Post by projectazorian » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:31 PM UTC

Lovely, but seems unlikely to make it past the current iteration of the Supreme Court.

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

#119

Post by ElevenLathe » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:31 PM UTC

notch656c wrote: post #84

ElevenLathe wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's subjective. The ones I like are good. The ones that help my allies are good. The ones that punish my enemies are good. Pretending that things are any other way is madness.

When the enforcers and courts are corrupted racketeers, even good laws are evil.

Unless they're corrupt in my favor!

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

#120

Post by alistairSH » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:32 PM UTC

ballenf wrote: post #103

alistairSH wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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…

Basically agree, but what we're increasingly facing in the US is growing barriers to entry to compete with behemoths in the form of an increasingly complex tax and regulatory structure which just isn't compatible with free market principles still applying to how those behemoths treat employees. In short, we have quasi state-sanctioned hegemons that have undue negotiating power. There are two solutions: nerf the barri…

Totally agree. If the problem under consideration is "corporate behemoths", then this is just nibbling at the edges. Which is better than nothing, but we can/should do much more.

But, if the problem is the much smaller/simpler "remove barriers to job changes", this is a pretty significant change in policy. Not as significant as divorcing medical coverage from employment, but still pretty big.