Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital

xconomy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 47 posts

Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital

#11

Post by toby »

tjic wrote: post #5

I dislike the government asserting that I am not a fully competent adult, capable of making my own decisions about what agreements I enter into and which I do not. If I'm not competent to read a non-compete and agree, or not agree, to it, then why do they think that I'm competent to drive a car, or vote, or sign a lease?

There are already plenty of things that can't be enforced by contract. You can't sell yourself into slavery, for instance, because the state isn't allowed to make sure you submit to your agreement.

As another commenter said, sign whatever you like. Some companies make you sign non-competes in California, we just all know they don't mean anything.

Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital

#13

Post by tptacek »

frig wrote: post #8
tjic wrote: post #5

I dislike the government asserting that I am not a fully competent adult, capable of making my own decisions about what agreements I enter into and which I do not. If I'm not competent to read a non-compete and agree, or not agree, to it, then why do they think that I'm competent to drive a car, or vote, or sign a lease?

It has nothing to do with your imputed (in)competence. All a decision like this would mean is: the state of MA has decided it's not in the interests of the state of MA to enforce noncompete clauses, so from here on out it will not enforce them. You can still sign whatever you want.

What does it matter what you can sign, if the contract doesn't have the support of courts to make it binding?

Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital

#14

Post by tptacek »

toby wrote: post #11
tjic wrote: post #5

I dislike the government asserting that I am not a fully competent adult, capable of making my own decisions about what agreements I enter into and which I do not. If I'm not competent to read a non-compete and agree, or not agree, to it, then why do they think that I'm competent to drive a car, or vote, or sign a lease?

There are already plenty of things that can't be enforced by contract. You can't sell yourself into slavery, for instance, because the state isn't allowed to make sure you submit to your agreement. As another commenter said, sign whatever you like. Some companies make you sign non-competes in California, we just all know they don't mean anything.

Is slavery the only comparison you've got? Because slavery isn't remotely like a noncompete, which makes your argument sound weak.

Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital

#15

Post by tptacek »

biohacker42 wrote: post #7
tjic wrote: post #5

I dislike the government asserting that I am not a fully competent adult, capable of making my own decisions about what agreements I enter into and which I do not. If I'm not competent to read a non-compete and agree, or not agree, to it, then why do they think that I'm competent to drive a car, or vote, or sign a lease?

I agree with the core of your argument, however in this instance we have private market manipulation. In most situations the employers have more leverage then the employee. The very best hires will not accept sub par offers. But a lot of others, including some very good ones, will. The result being that private companies influence the labor market for their own benefit and everyone else's detriment. That includes oth…

This move doesn't do anything to reduce the "market manipulation" you allege. If employers are negotiating from a position of strength, they'll get all manner of other concessions, starting with wages and benefits --- which is all most people care about. I don't see the principle that you're arguing from here.

Your comparisons are a little silly, too. There are good reasons (right of way, regulation) and bad (monopoly concessions, lobbying, corruption) that private utilities own entire markets. These have nothing to do with the forces behind noncompetes. No noncompete has helped establish any company's monopoly in any product or service you can name, even regionally.

Noncompetes are a trade. Companies provide employees with access to resources, client lists, and trade secrets. They want to ensure that rolodexes aren't shopped and product plans aren't bootlegged. These are reasonable goals. Employment contracts are blunt and inefficient instruments for accomplishing those goals, but that doesn't make the intent corrupt.

Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital

#16

Post by tptacek »

ivankirigin wrote: post #4

I didn't get a job at a startup in MA because they feared my last company's non-compete.

I've been involved in legal posturing between companies over noncompetes before, too. I wonder if, even if courts refuse to enforce noncompetes against individuals, the agreements will still have teeth between companies; just the cost of taking an ultimately doomed lawsuit to court might be deterrent enough.

Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital

#17

Post by donaldc »

tjic wrote: post #5

I dislike the government asserting that I am not a fully competent adult, capable of making my own decisions about what agreements I enter into and which I do not. If I'm not competent to read a non-compete and agree, or not agree, to it, then why do they think that I'm competent to drive a car, or vote, or sign a lease?

In theory, the ability to sign a non-compete increases an employee's options. In practice, if they're enforced, many employees no longer have much option for employment without signing them.

But don't worry, even if this bill passes, you'll still have the option of signing enforceable non-competes in almost every other state in the U.S.

Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital

#18

Post by ivankirigin »

tptacek wrote: post #16
ivankirigin wrote: post #4

I didn't get a job at a startup in MA because they feared my last company's non-compete.

I've been involved in legal posturing between companies over noncompetes before, too. I wonder if, even if courts refuse to enforce noncompetes against individuals, the agreements will still have teeth between companies; just the cost of taking an ultimately doomed lawsuit to court might be deterrent enough.

Indeed. Their fear wasn't the lawsuit, but delaying a product launch by a few months, at best.

Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital

#19

Post by biohacker42 »

tptacek wrote: post #15
biohacker42 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the core of your argument, however in this instance we have private market manipulation. In most situations the employers have more leverage then the employee. The very best hires will not accept sub par offers. But a lot of others, including some very good ones, will. The result being that private companies influence the labor market for their own benefit and everyone else's detriment. That includes oth…

This move doesn't do anything to reduce the "market manipulation" you allege. If employers are negotiating from a position of strength, they'll get all manner of other concessions, starting with wages and benefits --- which is all most people care about. I don't see the principle that you're arguing from here. Your comparisons are a little silly, too. There are good reasons (right of way, regulation) and bad (monopol…

Noncompetes are a trade. Companies provide employees with access to resources, client lists, and trade secrets. They want to ensure that rolodexes aren't shopped and product plans aren't bootlegged.

Isn't that an NDA?

I see non-competes as nothing but attempts to reduce competition. Except that is exactly how markets are NOT supposed to work. You're supposed to out-compete, not simply reduce competition.

Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital

#20

Post by mellis »

tjic wrote: post #5

I dislike the government asserting that I am not a fully competent adult, capable of making my own decisions about what agreements I enter into and which I do not. If I'm not competent to read a non-compete and agree, or not agree, to it, then why do they think that I'm competent to drive a car, or vote, or sign a lease?

Non-competes could be seen (from a company's point of view) as a form of the prisoner's dilemma: everyone is better off if no one requires non-competes, but if everyone else requires them than I need to. Therefore, a law of this sort could potentially improve conditions for all companies in a way that individual companies could not accomplish themselves. That is, the government is not trying to tell you what to do, it's trying to create a better business and employment environment.
Post reply on HN