U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts • Hacker News Board

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

#341

Post by mminer237 » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 7:33 PM UTC

gen220 wrote: post #253

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 (in…

The main time I see them make sense is with very skill-based, client-based practices like accounting. You're likely giving this hire a lot of clients, and you don't want him leaving in two years and taking half the clients with them.

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

#342

Post by TechBro8615 » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 7:34 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #267

gen220 wrote: post #253

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 (in…

The argument is basically that trade secrets violations are incredibly hard to detect and pursue. You can’t see inside a person’s brain, and (short of industrial espionage) you can’t see inside a competitor either. So a person could come work for you, gain some knowledge of your trade secrets, and then go get a huge offer from a competitor based on that knowledge. In contrast, it is extremely easy to detect a person’…

"Trade Secrets" have always sounded like a form of protectionism to me, anyway. If you believe software patents shouldn't exist, then you should follow the same logic to lead to the conclusion that trade secrets shouldn't exist either. Both are expressions of business processes that shouldn't otherwise be restricted by blanket clauses or gag orders.

To me (a non-lawyer and non-legal scholar), an NDA seems more appropriately legal than a non-compete agreement, because it at least depends on enforcing a specific action rather than blanket gagging a person's ability to do an entire job where they might not necessarily disclose pertinent information.

It begs the question, where is the line between NDA and non-compete? If I have an NDA and then go to a competitor, my former employer still has a right to enforce that NDA, but how would they ever determine (prove) I violated it? I guess this difficulty is where the justification for non-compete comes in, but I think the onus should be on the employer. It's not fair to the employee if the employer can just blanket forbid them from working somewhere because they might disclose some information to their new employer in a violation of an NDA which the old employer is either too lazy or incapable to detect.

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

#343

Post by blueprint » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 7:35 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #28

blueprint wrote: post #5

this seems like a really bad idea. people can just join a company, get trained, then leave. hello corporate espionage.

Corporate espionage is a crime. You don't need to tack non-competes on top of that. And if you think the primary purpose of non-competes is to prevent or mitigate corporate espionage, I've got a bridge to sell you.

yeah and how exactly do you prove it happened ? and where did you get all this money to litigate? I dont believe you yet understand the problem.

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

#344

Post by notch656c » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 7:35 PM UTC

projektfu wrote: post #327

notch656c wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 low…

Two things: first, are you referring to a regulation and saying that another regulation is inconsistent? It seems that neither is making "law" in the sense of an act of Congress. It would be different if the law had its own definition. Second, your citation appears to be out of date and the current regulation defines "frame or receiver" differently.

ATF acts are not congress acts. Brilliant statement. No one is saying ATF is congress, so by definition their act is not an act of congress.

>Second, your citation appears to be out of date and the current regulation defines "frame or receiver" differently.

At the time of US v Rowald there were pretty clear inconsistancies. If you're referring to recent changes there's barely been enough time to create a historical record as the judicial process is slow, so it seems kind of silly to constrain to only post-latest change examples.

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

#345

Post by dang » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 7:38 PM UTC

Recent and related:

FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34254183 - Jan 2023 (165 comments)

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

#346

Post by bob1029 » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 7:38 PM UTC

gen220 wrote: post #253

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 (in…

I think NC clauses are pretty bad in general. But, I can't shake a weird feeling that crops up from time to time. Anyone out there operating without one of these things over their heads that feels like maybe they should?

I started out at a tiny company that didn't think their app idea would make it as far as it did. It mostly has. Now I am looking at the terms of my employment and finding myself approximately as encumbered as a McDonalds employee on their first day.

Some of the things I know could be leveraged to turn our biggest competitor into an unstoppable explosion in very little time. I'd never actually do this (there are always higher-order effects w/ betrayal), but I do think I could use this concern as part of my salary re-negotiation this year.

Equity and other forms of compensation serve as a very powerful carrot to abate this temptation. Carrots don't always work though. You usually need some kind of stick at some level.

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

#347

Post by slymon99 » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 7:38 PM UTC

makestuff wrote: post #176

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.

Yea, I've always wondered if finance companies intentionally structure their comp this way to make garden leave more damaging

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

#348

Post by tchock23 » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 7:38 PM UTC

[Put this in another thread but adding it here since I didn't realize it was a duplicate thread]

My Dad was forced to retire early as a network engineer after the small (5 person) RSA consulting shop he was working for actively threatened his livelihood with a non-compete. No one in the industry would touch him because of how aggressively and proactively the owner of the shop was defending the non-compete.

I offered my financial resources and network to help him fight it, but he was nearing the end of his career and just didn't have the energy to fight. He now delivers dry cleaning at $15/hr just to get out of the house.

Non-competes can't die fast enough.

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

#349

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 7:39 PM UTC

pacetherace wrote: post #340

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The fact that they are essentially illegal in California, and California's economy works shows that are unnecessary and also don't hinder technological development." If there were another US state where noncompete agreements were "essentially legal" whose economy "worked" what would that show. Are there any other factors one should consider that affect whether a state's economy "works". Is it possible to work for a…

If something unethical works doesn't mean it should be condoned.

"Dark Patterns", "Surveillance Capitalism", "Big Tech"

It works!

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

#350

Post by deaddodo » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 7:40 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #325

jacobr1 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree these are system-wide less efficient, but shouldn't paid "garden leave" be legal if parties agree upfront?

> I would agree these are system-wide less efficient, but shouldn't paid "garden leave" be legal if parties agree upfront? “Garden leave” is basically just being in paid employment with no duties. Neither the FTC action nor state policies like those in California generally prohibit noncompetes while employed . However, if the compensation for such a contracted “garden leave” was substantially less than normal full-ti…

> Neither the FTC action nor state policies like those in California generally prohibit noncompetes while employed.

Where did you get that idea? In California: non-competes are carte blanche unenforced and even considered abusive and illegal in many contexts (for non-executives), whether you're currently employed or not.