This is both something I support (a huge win for labor), and it will accelerate the tech giants shifting work overseas to save money (incomes will rise as labor is able to more freely act to take advantage of opportunity, big tech will have to pay more for the same labor; to offset, they'll attempt to offshore more aggressively).
U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts
231–240 of 514 posts
Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They can even do that in cooperation with other states This is actually super interesting in that Article 1. Section 10 suggests this requires Congressional approval. I'd also that the US is a de jure federation of independently sovereign states, whereas we are a de facto central government with weak provincial governments. States cannot act independently or as a peer to the federal government or with each other, a…
> This is actually super interesting in that Article 1. Section 10 suggests this requires Congressional approval. The UCC is not an interstate compact in the sense of Article 1 Section 10. They're merely the same code that each state chose to adopt, with no legal ability for any other state to question if one state chooses to deviate from it in part or whole. It absolutely does not require Congressional approval. Int…
> You're absolutely right that state sovereignty has been steadily eroding, and I posit that this is to everyone's disadvantage.
The evidence suggests otherwise. When states wield their power on rights, it's usually against the interests of their people until the federal government forces them to stop by removing their power to do so. That doesn't mean the federal government is without issue, but it is the entity designed to protect liberties.
I don't think this is a simple case of tort that could or should vary between states. It's about the freedom of individuals to choose who employs them and protecting them from those with power. The existence of this as a state law would only serve to exist in opposition to states that don't, to the detriment of their citizens.
Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts
#233Earlier 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.
This wouldn't be a widespread practice outside of fields with proprietary data, relationships, or trade secrets, which tend to have better compensation. The costs of having a non-working employee on the payroll, even at the $40k-level need to be worth it. It isn't going to be the case for a random grocery store manager or whatever that they are worth the costs.
Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand them in any field. I was forced into signing one for tech that blocks me from working from any competitor for up to 2 years. Depending on how loosely you define competitors that could mean I can't work in tech for 2 years after this job. Unfortunately for me I can't afford a lawyer. Fortunately for me non-competes of this level are generally unenforceable. You have NDAs already. It's not like you'r…
you're not automatically entitled to use or benefit from the IP developed by others and then disclosed to you just because you signed a paper that promises to pay you for work. maybe it makes more sense where your opponent is a horrible but huge company like facebook but this move can kill development of sensitive or novel tech by underfunded entrepreneurs. it is a mistake for the USA. maybe you guys should downvote…
What does tesla batteries have anything to do with this? And california has banned them for years but its tech sector seems to be thriving and much, much stronger than anywhere in Europe that actually enforces them. So what are you basing your prediction on?
Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts
#235Good. 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…
In normal countries these are only valid when the previous employer pays for the time you are not allowed to work.
If I work at a bank as a developer then I can go straight to the next one, if the previous employer doesn't keep paying me a compensation for not working at the next bank.
Not being able to 'in sales' as sibling commenter says here is just insane, and should not hold in court anywhere.
Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. The law can only mandate salaries during noncompete periods. It cannot mandate bonuses or stock grants, both of which can be significant. And as an employee, I prefer that noncompete has no effect. Even if I were paid during noncompete period, I would be outcompeted by other people who are working rather than being idle. It would set my career back.
Would you be ok if it was total compensation (averaged over a reasonable period) and not salary?
The problem there is people often leave one job for a job which might pay 2x, 5x, or even more.
How about if you get another job offer, your original employer has to either "buy you out" of the new job offer, or you allowed to take it?
Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts
#237I agree that noncompetes are bad, but the FTC declaring it without a congressional mandate seems deeply questionable.
too bad people's brains can't process stuff like that. they can only do a single level of "do i agree with the outcome" and not whether or not its actually legal or sets a bad precedent. or god forbid, think what powers that would give their political opponent when they take power.
student debt was another one. whether or not you agree with forgiving it, it's deeply disturbing for the president to knowingly do something unconstitutional and do an endrun around congress' power of the purse. With the hope that no one has standing to challenge it
Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. :(
No offense taken: I strongly disagree with my dad on politics, and a big part of the reason why is because of just how bad the conservative media was in those years. Also, even he was appalled by the turn the Republican party took with Trump. I doubt he would argue the same today. He's a diehard believer in constitutional law, and he projected his ideals onto people who didn't actually hold them. That said, I do beli…
I fully agree on your closing proposition. I think my only concern is I'm worried that is, itself, turning into a weapon.
Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts
#239I agree that noncompetes are bad, but the FTC declaring it without a congressional mandate seems deeply questionable.
Is such a move not one of the purposes of these agencies staffed by (supposedly) experts and run by appointees? Legislature is so dysfunctional that the House can't elect a speaker at this very moment, and who knows if such a measure would even see the light of day in committee let alone get to the floor if the lobbyists got wind of it. If the lawmakers take issue with the ruling they can issue a mandate to roll it b…
no. they have specific laid out bounds with which they can operate in. it's deeply dangerous and disturbing for them to try to exceed that. especially because they aren't elected. they don't get to just exceed those bounds and wait for legislature to issue a ruling to roll it back. it's quite the opposite.
its the equivalent of if the tsa started trying to pat you down before you got in your car. and then saying its okay because congress can just roll it back.
Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts
#240When I want to leave a company and look for a new job, I hate non-competes.
When I want to stay at a company and a good co-worker quits to go work for a competitor, I love non-competes.
When I want to stay at a company and a toxic co-worker quits to go work for a competitor I cheer that a non-compete did not block that move. And yes, I’ve been in this situation and the toxic employee was CEO of the start-up. I’m pretty sure the competing start-up he went to failed because he went there. Smartest move the start-up I was at ever made to let him go there.
I think the best solution is for companies to make damn sure that good employees don’t want to leave to work for a competitor, instead of making them sign a non-compete, especially before you really know if they are toxic or not.