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

251–260 of 514 posts

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

#251

Post by blueprint »

mardifoufs wrote: post #234
blueprint wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[flagged]

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

#252

Post by monksy »

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…

Non-competes do not protect an organization against IP theft or trade sceret dismenination. Those are portected by NDAs, confidentiality agreements, copyrights, patents, etc.

Non-competes limit where your staff can go to. Without proper compensation for the time period in which they apply for, they're a very one sided (and in some cases illegal [NCs are legal in IL unless they assert an economic hardship]) way to prevent employees leaving. The claims for them is "training cost is expensive and it's to limit staff from training at one company and leaving" (which as we know.. companies generally don't do training in house)

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

#253

Post by gen220 »

I think we're all pretty familiar with the arguments against non-competes. Does anybody have a compelling argument for them, as practiced in 2023 in the US?

While we're at it, does anybody have a compelling justification for allowing non-poach agreements, too?

From my perspective, they both seem like a non-durable benefit to $current_employer at the expense of a compounding opportunity cost to the greater economy (insofar as it hinders an efficient execution of the labor-employer matching process).

Curious if anybody has an interesting argument for why this is OK. The only thing that comes to mind is "trade secrets" arguments, but don't we have separate laws for that?

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

#254

Post by monksy »

Non-competes do not protect an organization against IP theft or trade sceret dissemination. Those are protected by NDAs, confidentiality agreements, copyrights, patents, etc.

If you see someone making a claim that it's to protect company secrets, that is misinformation used to justify NCs. Please inform them otherwise.

Non-competes limit where your staff can go to. Without proper compensation for the time period in which they apply for, they're a very one sided (and in some cases illegal [NCs are legal in IL unless they assert an economic hardship]) way to prevent employees leaving. The claims for them is "training cost is expensive and it's to limit staff from training at one company and leaving" (which as we know.. companies generally don't do training in house)

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

#255

Post by batmaniam »

If businesses think their employees are so valuable that blocking them from working for a competitor is necessary... then how about just giving them incentives to stay? I don't know, maybe a huge bonus, or above-average salary adjustments against the competitor, etc? Or fix the toxic work environment so that they'll actually want to stay?

Otherwise too bad, the business created unfavorable conditions for their employees, so workers should have every right to leave and work for anyone else, including competitors. Either employees are that valuable or they're not, can't have your cake and eat it too, Mr. Big Boss.

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

#256

Post by comte7092 »

bpodgursky wrote: post #7

I agree that noncompetes are bad, but the FTC declaring it without a congressional mandate seems deeply questionable.

The FTC has a congressional mandate (otherwise it wouldn’t exist), the only argument is whether this falls within the mandate they’ve been given.

The FTC claims non competes undermine competition, which is within their mandate, and honestly not that tough of an argument to make.

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

#257

Post by schnable »

weakfortress wrote: post #149
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #19

I understand noncompetes in some fields... but this can be solved in other ways. In my country (slovenia), a noncopete is valid only if you're being financially compensated by some amount while the noncompete lasts. It's a bit complicated here, but ideally companies wanting noncompetes could be forced to pay the difference between what the worker would've earned if they stayed (+ some safety factor for a potential ra…

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…

I think you can afford a lawyer as a staff engineer, especially for an issue that directly affects your compensation.

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

#258

Post by monksy »

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

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

In your example, they cannot claim the skills and basic education that gets you up to the point of "how they mill iphones within a context" (i.e. the milling, operating the machinery, physical properties of the metal, etc)

They are not legally able to include a huge educational backbone of knowledge (that they may have taught you) as their prioptary IP. Again, NCs don't prevent that disemination. That disemination can happen without employment.

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

#259

Post by endisneigh »

netheril96 wrote: post #160
endisneigh wrote: post #95

I disagree with banning noncompetes. The issue IMO isn't noncompetes, it's the fact that an employer doesn't have to pay. The rule should be that they can make you not compete, but you must be compensated monthly at your salary level prior to departure. A non compete without having to pay is having your cake and eating it to so to speak.

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.

My fear around banning is that if an employer were willing to buy you out but non competes are banned the only real option they have would be to not hire you, no?

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

#260

Post by short_sells_poo »

dmlerner wrote: post #184
not_the_fda wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often times you are not informed about non-compete until your first day of work unless you know to explicitly ask about it. They have you over the barrel at that point. I once took a job at a design service company. Asked about any non-competes and invention stuff. Said there wasn't any verbally. I get there and they have this draconian non-compete that you can't work for any other design services, start your own des…

How are you not informed in advance? Every job I've had, there's a contract I sign in advance with all terms, and no addendum on day one. I'd think you could refuse to sign an addendum, and even sue for promissory estoppel if they fire you for not signing.

Yes, a lawsuit aimed at a big corporation will be surely at the fingertips of everyone who is forced by circumstances to sign such clauses.

Let's be real, most people will sign whatever is presented to them on day 1 of their new employment because they need money now. They could refuse to sign, in which case they will be shown the door and encouraged to seek opportunities elsewhere.

That in 4 years time they might've won a legal battle they can't afford is little consolation when they won't be able to make rent now.

Nevermind that once they are in a legal battle, they'll have great difficulty being hired again.

Please don't take offense, but the level of disconnect shown on HN from the prospects and struggles of an average person is sometimes staggering.

Post reply on HN