Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

Post by ascar » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 7:18 AM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #76

dunpeal wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually an engineer :-) I used "smartass" because it's a move that superficially seems clever, but is actually completely futile when you look at the broad picture - as my comment shows. I don't know if us engineers have "low social status", but we certainly don't have as much negotiating power as some of us may fancy, certainly not against a huge mega-corporation.

All other things being equal, businesses will hire the candidate that they can potentially abuse before the one that may righteously push back. So if you are one who would negotiate the terms of a non-compete, you will not even get the opportunity until all those who will just blindly sign it have been given the chance to do so. The smart-ass part is signaling that you're less-abusable before the decision is made on…

Post by quickthrower2 » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 7:29 AM UTC

grecy wrote: post #124

BonesJustice wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

60%? Forget that. Why should anyone give up their right to work for a little over half of their market value? There is no excuse for allowing less than 100% compensation, and that should include not just salary, but projected bonuses.

> 60%? Forget that. Why should anyone give up their right to work for a little over half of their market value? Well, you could take the American option where you're not allowed to work in that field, so you get 0% of your salary... (California excluded, if I understand correctly)

Post by kiriakasis » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 7:39 AM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #117

fenomas wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, employees don't get paid for "goodwill value" The passage you quoted and replied to wasn't about employees, it was one of two examples GP raised to argue that that non-competes can make sense outside of an employment context . > Thus, even states like California, which basically ban the use of non-competes in an employment context, will fully enforce them in the situations noted above.

From the original comment > So too if you exit a professional practice and get bought out. Same principle. You get paid for the goodwill value and you should not be able to capitalize on the payment and simultaneously raid the goodwill of your former practice by competing against it. Fair and reasonable even though it restricts you in your livelihood. Unless "professional practice" specifically refers to something li…

Post by BozeWolf » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 7:45 AM UTC

quickthrower2 wrote: post #143

grecy wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 60%? Forget that. Why should anyone give up their right to work for a little over half of their market value? Well, you could take the American option where you're not allowed to work in that field, so you get 0% of your salary... (California excluded, if I understand correctly)

The German dev gets paid 25% of the US dev salary though.

Post by lordnacho » Thu, Dec 06, 2018, 8:01 AM UTC

TallGuyShort wrote: post #31

LanguageGamer wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, to your mind, are good reasons for non-competes? To me it just looks like rent-seeking. Do you see any negative consequences in states that have banned them almost entirely, such as California?

In some cases an employee might be able to build up a base of loyal customers more easily with a larger firm than they could alone, leave and take much of that business with them, and enjoy the continued productivity with much higher margins. The resources of the larger firm then become a stepping stone to the loss of their own business. I know of one case (in which I am actually mostly sympathetic to the individual…