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

11–20 of 514 posts

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

#11

Post by blueprint »

aliqot wrote: post #10
blueprint wrote: post #5

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

as opposed to joining a company, get trained, get laid off when the economy dips, forced to be unemployed

so maybe regulators should introduce nullifying noncompetes with certain cases, not nullifying them in every circumstance. but still, they serve an obvious purpose, even if you are laid off by that company. the idea is you are given confidential info that you are not supposed to use because that's unfair competition. not that you're likely to care

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

#12

Post by Arrath »

bpodgursky wrote: post #7

I 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 back, no?

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

#13

Post by dchuk »

blueprint wrote: post #5

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

There are still intellectual property laws in place that could protect the original companies. Non-competes stifle innovators at big companies from being able to leave and pursue their own ideas that are in the same domain as the parent company.

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

#14

Post by LanceH »

TSiege wrote: post #3

This is a bigger deal then the title suggests since it appears it would be retroactive and nullify existing non competes > The commission’s proposal appears to address this issue by requiring employers to withdraw existing noncompetes and to inform workers that they no longer apply. The proposal would also make it illegal for an employer to enter into a noncompete with a worker or to try to do so, or to suggest that…

> Given the hostility of the current Supreme Court to federal agencies

Maybe it's overreach by federal agencies when they create their own law.

There is a distinction between authorizing an agency to figure out how to get something done and letting one make new law.

Dramatically limiting the power of agencies to make up their own new laws seems like a good thing.

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

#15

Post by elashri »

blueprint wrote: post #5

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

If you allow a company to hire someone, then they left their current job, move to another place (worse if it is international and require visa) then the company says sorry but we have to let you fo without this being illegal. Now why this is different?. This at least restore some of the power balance.

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

#17

Post by rpmw »

blueprint wrote: post #5

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

In my experience noncompetes aren't enforced, unless you are very high up in the company and even then C-level folks usually get nice incentives to stay away from their competitors.

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

#18

Post by JJMcJ »

brohoolio wrote: post #2

I’m surprised it’s taken so long. Companies have abused this practice to an absurd degree. Got a job at a sandwich shop? I guess you are prohibited from getting a different job down the street based on the agreement you signed at the beginning of your employment.

I think the sandwich shop and similar working class non-competes is what finally pushed this into happening.

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

#19

Post by ajsnigrutin »

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 raise elsewhere, eg 20%) and what they earn now with a noncompete.

So if a worker earned 100k, with the safety factor for a raise that means 120k, and can only earn 50k due to a noncompete, the company would have to pay the difference of 70k to that worker if they wanted to keep the noncompete valid (for a limited amount of time). Company keeps their 'secrets', but has to pay for the secrecy.

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

#20

Post by lambdasquirrel »

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.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN