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

121–130 of 514 posts

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

#121

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Zigurd wrote: post #105
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's more than "custom." Since we have judicial review, courts can strike down an unconstitutional taking of property. It goes back to WWKGD? ("What would King George do?") ...and doing the opposite. So we have constitutional protections against seizing private property, but arbitrary terms, except they must be limited terms, for grants of monopoly. Not perfectly observed of course. The Mouse always stretches the def…

> more than "custom." Since we have judicial review, courts can strike down an unconstitutional taking of property

The custom cited is the power of the Constitution. The point is all property is an invented construct.

This isn’t some neo-Marxist hot take. It’s reflecting that IP is simply a novel form of e.g. drawing lines on a map and calling them deeds. One is older and more precedented. That’s a huge advantage. But neither is more “fake” than the other.

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

#123

Post by rqtwteye »

alistairSH wrote: post #69
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…

Totally agree. “Free market” usually means that the big guys can do whatever they want to do including suppressing competition. “Competitive market”, “Functioning markets” or “fair markets” would be much better goals.

We should especially work on reducing information asymmetry. Big examples are salary negotiation and US healthcare. There we have parties (employers, hospitals, insurances ) that have almost all information and then the employees/patients that have almost no information. The old rule is that whoever has the least information in a negotiation will lose.

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

#124

Post by petechapman »

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.

> economic system starts to resemble feudalism.

I've long been a proponent that capitalism is not just about the economy but is instead a larger force more akin to feudalism.

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

#125

Post by cbb330 »

Government intervention is heavy handed and will cause unintended side affects with 100% certainty.

What should happen is for: 1) employees to choose to not join companies with contracts that they don't agree with 2) employers offer better incentive to not leave for roles at risk to poaching e.g. RSUs.

A natural market response to bad company policy is always preferred to government mandates.

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

#126

Post by throwayyy479087 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #67
Zigurd wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's the point of the Second Amendment. If you try to take my property, I will shoot you.

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

#127

Post by bumby »

horsawlarway wrote: post #63
donatj wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wh…

Workers have mechanisms to balance that power. E.g., forming a union, which could ensure the contract is more fair. I don't know what to make of the fact that they don't use them.

In your opinion, is there a reason why something like a union couldn't be used to negate or modify non-compete clauses?

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

#128

Post by giantg2 »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #114
seneca wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Still less of a power imbalance than talking about the government. Let's not forget that the government is the one who enforces those non-competes. So you're really only talking about one subset of the government authority.

I think non-competes for workers should be banned. But I'm just saying there are other more feudalistic examples (good or bad) that exist.

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

#129

Post by bastardoperator »

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.

The market isn't free if you're not allowed to work/compete in it.

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

#130

Post by AlexandrB »

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…

This example seems extra crazy. The only entities it protects are large companies. The biggest threat to a local bakery is not their employee leaving and starting their own bakery, but a large bakery chain coming in and undercutting their prices. No non-compete will help with that. Meanwhile, the large bakery chain does benefit from being able to stop you from baking for someone else if you leave their employ. At a minimum it helps them suppress wages.
Post reply on HN