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

191–200 of 514 posts

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

#191

Post by crazygringo »

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…

But even that has major drawbacks -- if you're not actually working, then you're not building your resume, you're not getting promotions, you're not advancing. And if you find your work meaningful and satisfying, that meaning and satisfaction is gone. Not to mention who determines how much "being paid" means, when compensation isn't just base salary but also variable things like company bonuses, individual performance bonuses, stock compensation -- plus the increased compensation you'd get from potential raises.

I too can see the reasons that non-competes exist, but I see more reasons why they shouldn't exist. And even if a company thinks it's worth it to pay someone's salary for a year or two to enforce a non-compete, is this really what's best for the economy overall? Motivated, highly skilled people excluded from the job market?

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

#192

Post by scottLobster »

Terretta wrote: post #174
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, that theory's a load. If the fear is formal IP theft then as you point out there are harder protections for that. If the fear is they'll learn your business practices and use them to compete with you, then you suck and they deserve to win. Because you're the established business with all the advantages and existing customers, even if they have the capital lying around to start a copy-cat business tomorrow you should be able to wipe the floor with them and make sure they never get off the ground.

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

#193

Post by lotsofpulp »

xyzelement wrote: post #180

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…

> 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.

In your example, non competes seem to be optimal for the hedge fund investors, but I fail to see how it was optimal for everyone.

California has been pumping out quite a stream of “interesting jobs” and interesting businesses in a world of no non competes.

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

#194

Post by salawat »

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…

Yes, I do expect Congress to either build up that expertise, or hire their own staff yo do the footwork for them. The Library of Congress, in point of fact, was established to fulfill that very need. Congressional research. Also, until Gingrich in the 104th-ish Congress convinced them to shut it down in the 90's, the Legislative branch had their own independent Office of Technology Assessment research arm which to my understanding was a thorn in lobbyists side, because not only did they have a mandate to run down discrepancies (i.e. lobbyist said X, but our research/subpoenaing found Y is the case).

It was nuked because "we should just listen to lobbyists more", and basically the replacement enacted was to take double OTA's yearly budget, and drop that onto the Library of Congress, I suppose with the implication the GOP believes that Congresspeople should do their own research.

The level of follow thru on that is probably just what you'd expect.

If OTA came back, I'd be one of the first to throw my hat in the ring as a researcher/go-for, just because I believe it is such an essential piece of a healthy legislative institution, and we have suffered greatly over the past decades for want of it.

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

#195

Post by NegativeK »

cbb330 wrote: post #125

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.

Non-competes require governments to enforce them; abolishing them is the actual anti-interventionist strategy.

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

#196

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#197

Post by salawat »

8ytecoder wrote: post #170
notch656c wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do in all but name. One day a polymer80 frame in a box with a jig is a gun. Another day it is not. The only difference is a letter from an ATF agent. Lawmakers make laws intentionally vague to hide their nefarious motives, and then let the courts "determine" the agencies can "clarify." Then the lawmakers point their fingers at the evil agencies while secretly laughing it was all in their plan to offload blame fo…

That’s not “making” a law. The law already says certain types of firearm are legal and certain are illegal. Now if this law were to be maintained by congress, they’d need, I don’t know, a group of experts who understand firearm and congress will constantly revise and add or remove items from a list. May be they’ll give this group a name at some point and then they’d realise that it’s really hard to manage all this wh…

Look up Administrative Law. It is lawmaking; even if you have such linguistic elides as aliasing the primary verb to 'rulemaking' instead.

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

#198

Post by notch656c »

8ytecoder wrote: post #170
notch656c wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do in all but name. One day a polymer80 frame in a box with a jig is a gun. Another day it is not. The only difference is a letter from an ATF agent. Lawmakers make laws intentionally vague to hide their nefarious motives, and then let the courts "determine" the agencies can "clarify." Then the lawmakers point their fingers at the evil agencies while secretly laughing it was all in their plan to offload blame fo…

That’s not “making” a law. The law already says certain types of firearm are legal and certain are illegal. Now if this law were to be maintained by congress, they’d need, I don’t know, a group of experts who understand firearm and congress will constantly revise and add or remove items from a list. May be they’ll give this group a name at some point and then they’d realise that it’s really hard to manage all this wh…

Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, section 478.11 defines a “firearm receiver” as, “[t]hat part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”

ATF has "regulated" that an AR-15 lower "receiver" is legally a "firearm receiver." Now show me where the "bolt or breechblock" is housed in the lower receiver. I promise you will not find it. They are basically making law.

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

#199

Post by ipaddr »

ericbarrett wrote: post #163
sebzim4500 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

In some cases the total comp is less than 50% salary. Might be fine for some quant PhD to go from $1M to $250k, but if this "workaround" to enforcing non-competes becomes more popular and spreads to different fields you could see positions that go from (say) $80k + benefits to $40k without, with furlough enforced for a year. That would be devastating for a family with children.

But the people you are concerned with are not paid 40k plus 40k bonus that can be clawed away they are paid 80k.

Bonuses are like options being worthwhile in that they are mostly out of your control. When I see a position pays 140,000 plus bonus which was almost 40,000 last year I know I can only count on 140,000 this year and if 40,000 happens to be awarded great.

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

#200

Post by kube-system »

falcor84 wrote: post #182
notch656c wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would love to take a short vacation to an alternate universe where all job descriptions say that applicants MUST NOT have any recent experience in the area of employment.

That's kind of how clean room design works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
Post reply on HN