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

171–180 of 514 posts

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

#171

Post by notch656c »

mywittyname wrote: post #93
LanceH wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given the hostility of the current Supreme Court to federal agencies Maybe it's overreach by federal agencies when they create their own law. There is a distinction between authorizing an agency to figure out how to get something done and letting one make new law. Dramatically limiting the power of agencies to make up their own new laws seems like a good thing.

Why shouldn't Congress be able to delegate powers? Congress writes the laws and it seems appropriate that they should be able to write a law that allows a group they delegate to write and enforce regulations on their behalf. Especially when the scope of such laws is so narrowly and explicitly defined. Do you really expect Congresspeople to have the educational background necessary to regulate agricultural products, a…

Unelected entities should not be writing "regulations" (that have the power of law). Particularly when they both write the "regulation" and enforce it with police powers, such as the ATF, creating a dangerous fusion of the separated powers.

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

#172

Post by taeric »

lolinder wrote: post #70
ElevenLathe wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

I know it will sound like a slight to your dad, but in 2009 many conservative news outlets were pushing this narrative extremely heavily. And, I don't recall any actual evidence to back it up. It was more a weaponized accusation, much as marital infidelity was in the mid/late 90s. Worse, by all evidence since then, the record seems to be far more in the opposite direction. :(

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

#173

Post by ghaff »

thwayunion wrote: post #106
affyboi wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For quant finance and HFT noncompetes usually pay out pretty generously

Interestingly, the FTC rule does not include an exception for garden pay.

Probably just as well. Garden leave can be a pretty unsatisfactory mitigation, especially if it's not 100% of salary or if a lot of total comp is in bonus or equity. And even money aside, some people may not want to put their career on hold for a year.

Essentially garden leave is a compromise that's better than nothing and will make companies think twice about trying to enforce a non-compete. However, non-competes still raise flags for potential employers as well. (I used to work for a very small company and we wouldn't touch anyone who had a non-compete in place.)

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

#174

Post by Terretta »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #113
Alex3917 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

their investment in teaching you their IP -- that's the theory

you trade getting to learn for agreeing not to use it against them for a while -- is the theory

at line worker level i'd argue this is nonsense, at 'how to mill iPhones from a single block of metal' or 'self driving car brain' maybe its real, but there are ndas and patents for that

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

#175

Post by cnelsenmilt »

zozbot234 wrote: post #68
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.

This is a convincing argument to me, but there's no telling whether it is enough to convince five+ of The Nine.

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

#176

Post by makestuff »

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…

IMO it should be full compensation of your last years' w2. In finance they pay you garden leave but only base pay. So they are only out a small portion of your actual cost.

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

#177

Post by Retric »

brightball wrote: post #164
Ethan_Mick wrote: post #91

Good. I've seen over and over this harm friends in frustrating ways. Tech aside, non-competes in other industries are completely insane. My wife is an optometrist and all local shops have draconic noncompetes you are forced to sign. If you leave the shop you can't work within 30 miles (or more!) of that location. I've had friends move entire cities just so they can get out of a terrible work situation. Worse, I've ha…

IMO the primary concern at an office like that is having access to patient data and then enticing them to go elsewhere. If the person wants to go work elsewhere, totally fine. The concern is trying to take customers or other staff with them. I know somebody that happened to. Company opened a branch office and one of the senior staff rented an office around the corner, took half the staff and patients. Stuck them with…

Protecting trade secrets and customer/client lists etc don’t require non competes.

What they are generally used for is to limit competition or depress wages both of which are economically harmful.

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

#178

Post by scottLobster »

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…

Uh, how does that make any sense? What if the local bakery sucks? Why is the bakery you work at immune to competition but the bakery a couple of towns over isn't?

How are you examining these rules that it "doesn't seem especially crazy?", what's the rationale?

Capitalism requires competition to produce positive outcomes, the only reason to limit or ban competition is in the edge cases where the model doesn't work (patents, utilities, etc). Frankly we have too many regulatory moats as it is IMO.

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

#180

Post by xyzelement »

Non competes are often necessary in the most interesting jobs. A few years ago I took a job at a hedge fund with a 2 year noncompete. I took a calculated risk doing so.

In the 2 years I worked in the fund, I learned a tremendous amount thanks to being exposed to the "secret sauce" which would have been really damaging for me to take to a competitor.

After I left the fund, I took the 2 year non-compete (ie: don't work in another fund) to explore other industries, ended up in a FAANG and quite happy.

Point being, as an adult I weighed the risk of the non competes vs the opportunity of the role and made a decision. I am not sure how this kind of role would work in a world of no non-competes but I suspect it would be suboptimal for everyone.

The bottom line is, a non compete is not something that springs on you. It's something you evaluated in context and chose, as a professional. You don't have to take the job.

Post reply on HN