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

361–370 of 514 posts

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

#361

Post by gameman144 »

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

I really get a kick out of this thinking, because there's literally no alternative from the employer's point of view. If you want to hire someone to do a job, you have to teach them how to do the job.

To impose punitive measures after-the-fact because someone taught you how to do a job that they needed you to do seems hilarious even on the face of it.

To be clear, saying "You're not allowed to use our IP or our machinery or our supplies" is totally reasonable; if I quit Starbucks, then of course I won't have Starbucks machines or merch. To say that you're not allowed to do something because they happened to be the ones to train you seems just silly.

I get very strong middle-school vibes, where you introduce your friend-from-another-school to your group, then get mad when they become better friends with someone else than they are with you.

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

#362

Post by blululu »

eclipsetheworld wrote: post #27

In Germany we have non-competes, however, the employer has to continue paying the ex-employee (a part of) their salary for the non-compete to have any effect.

How much pay is given for this? This doesn't really give the desired effect unless the payout amount is guaranteed to be a substantial portion of salary. If a company can just pay $1/year for a non-compete then it is as good as nothing. In theory an employee can negotiate their contract but in practice it is much harder to do this since it involves lawyers and the power balance of the relationship is fundamentally unequal. Having a blanket ban on non-competes or requiring a significant percentage of compensation is needed to make this work.

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

#364

Post by heavyset_go »

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…

That'll still hurt you because entitled employers will want to know why you didn't just take another job and will worry that if you sign their non-compete, they might have to pay out your salary + benefits for a year or more when you decide to leave.

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

#365

Post by heavyset_go »

jakeinspace wrote: post #92
mywittyname wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'd hire for a different role and "transfer" the person.

This is the perfect use case for anonymous tips receiving a percentage of the fine.

Works well for taxes and other whistleblowers.

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

#366

Post by mjevans »

heavyset_go wrote: post #364
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…

That'll still hurt you because entitled employers will want to know why you didn't just take another job and will worry that if you sign their non-compete, they might have to pay out your salary + benefits for a year or more when you decide to leave.

On your resume you'd list the NDA period as employment by the other company in technical terms.

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

#367

Post by simplotek »

donatj wrote: post #50
simplotek wrote: post #6

Noncompete clauses for workers is the most anti-american, anti-free-market policy anyone could pull. If workers aren't free to switch to better jobs and at the same time are left to fend off for themselves them the economic system starts to resemble feudalism.

> anti-free-market policy I go back and forth on that. It seems like the free market ideal would be to allow them and if people didn't like them they wouldn't sign them. No one telling anyone what to do. It certainly hasn't panned out that way though.

> It seems like the free market ideal would be to allow them and if people didn't like them they wouldn't sign them. No one telling anyone what to do.

I’ve grown to learn that arguments on labour markets and free market ideals tend to be very simplistic and, knowingly or not, always boil down to victim blaming.

When we’ve unemployed and actively looking for a job, if we have bills to pay and our budget is tight, our goal is to get a source of income as soon as possible. Consequently, we are vulnerable for unscrupulous conditions, such as non-competes. This does not mean that the job market finds them acceptable or encourages them. It just means employees that push these abusive conditions upon their new hires are abusing their dominant position to exploit workers, specially those in vulnerable positions.

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

#368

Post by jessaustin »

dragonwriter wrote: post #298
aidenn0 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress is rapidly becoming a failed institution. They have gradually outsourced their duties to various administrative authorities (such as the FTC) to the point that the only thing they must do to keep the US running is pass the annual budget and raise the debt ceiling. I think any time an administrative authority or, even better, the courts do something that a legislator wants done, they breathe a sigh of relief…

> congress spent nearly zero time passing any pro-choice laws. What pro-choice federal law do you imagine would have substantive effect in the face of what would be (and was) necessary for Roe to fall:!a Supreme Court that is (1) so dismissive of well-established precedent as to strike down the cases establishing abortion as a 14th Amendment right (thereby both removing the independent bar to state anti-abortion law…

Throwing out a simple "states may not restrict abortion except in the following ways" federal codification passed by Congress (in e.g. 2009) would have taken a lot more justification than overruling a previous court decision. The latter was a "whoops we changed our minds" and the former would have been more of a "only one branch of government counts and legislative ain't it!" Perhaps there are five ethically bankrupt justices serving now, but I can only count three, and it would have been good to uncover the others sooner rather than later.

Besides, if you truly have so little faith in our institutions (congratulations on paying attention!), why bother working with them at all? It soon will be time to do something else.

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

#370

Post by asdff »

Noncompetes are a classic example of employers abusing their position and their ability to lobby for laws such as these in the first place, to benefit their bottom line at the expense of their employees.

If you had some sensitive information that an employee knows about and you are worried about losing them, why not just pay them more to stay on then, versus making them absolutely unmarketable in the workplace because all their relevant skills and experiences are illegal to be used again? What are you even expected to do in that case then? Get a job at McDonalds until the noncompete expires and you can actually send your resume out gain?

Post reply on HN