21–30 of 421 posts
Why can't congress do something about this? Non-competes are clearly terrible for workers, and should at the least be illegal without a severance agreement. If a company wants to keep me from working they should pay for the privilege. Workers also need to start refusing to sign egregiously bad non-compete agreements.
Non-competes, the most anti-innovation, anti-skilled worker, anti-free market, anti-business and anti-American thing in working today. Non-competes are protectionism for larger businesses over small/medium businesses. As a freelancer, contractor and self-employed business owner/worker, please make these illegal, tired of these. The worst part about non-competes is they are blanket protectionism usually and up to 2+ y…
From your comments I gather you might not understand the problem. Were Soft Engs simply to do 'work' then you would be absolutely right. But in a world of IP ... it's a different story. Company ABC brings you in, trains you on their know-how and core IP, which took a lot of struggle, $, and R&D to create - then you leave, go to a competitor, and effectively communicate and give away ABC Corps. most valuable asset. No…
Um, that's covered by an NDA--Non-Disclosure Agreement.
Those are generally QUITE enforceable, even in California and often last for 3 to 5 years.
Non-compete is quite different.
I don't understand how these clauses are even legal at first place. It violates the basic right of freedom of work. You can't have on one end freedom of enterprise but on the other hand no freedom of work for employees. the worst thing is the fact that these agreements usually come with 0 compensation.
It's too easy for companies to claim losses from competing employees. They need to put their $$$ where their mouth is
Non-competes, the most anti-innovation, anti-skilled worker, anti-free market, anti-business and anti-American thing in working today. Non-competes are protectionism for larger businesses over small/medium businesses. As a freelancer, contractor and self-employed business owner/worker, please make these illegal, tired of these. The worst part about non-competes is they are blanket protectionism usually and up to 2+ y…
From your comments I gather you might not understand the problem. Were Soft Engs simply to do 'work' then you would be absolutely right. But in a world of IP ... it's a different story. Company ABC brings you in, trains you on their know-how and core IP, which took a lot of struggle, $, and R&D to create - then you leave, go to a competitor, and effectively communicate and give away ABC Corps. most valuable asset. No…
Not being able to work work in the same field for up to 2 years (non-compete) and not disclosing internal ip, processes, etc when you go work at another company (NDA) in the field are much different.
Preventing someone from working in a field and not disclosing or sharing secrets/ip are two different animals.
NDAs are useful and I use them myself when contractors work with us, but non-competes create a very master/slave type of relationship, ownership of someone's skill that they need to work.
Paid non-competes are something that isn't as bad but non paid non-competes are horrible for the little guy and really a form of ownership that really goes against 'pro-business' ideals for smaller companies trying to compete while seemingly being 'pro-business' for the company doling out non-competes (big fish).
Contractors can't be told where to work, how to work or times to work, why are we allowing companies to tell skilled workers what they can and can't work on after the contract is up aside from what is under NDA?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> California also prohibits any employee agreement which claims employer ownership of intellectual property developed on the employee's own time I have always wondered how could such a claim on ownership could exist in the first place. This reduces the employee to a mere company slave.
I think that the idea behind such employee agreements is that they encourage the sharing of new ideas within companies, as employees will not 'hold the ideas back' to use when they go off and start their own companies.
It's up to the company to provide incentive for workers to "share new ideas" by rewarding innovation within the company, not limiting where the employee can work. Of course, most companies don't do that, steal ideas from employees without rewarding them in any ways or even give them credit when an idea leads to a successful product. Boss A or manager B gets all the recognition, and the employee gets nothing.
Why can't congress do something about this? Non-competes are clearly terrible for workers, and should at the least be illegal without a severance agreement. If a company wants to keep me from working they should pay for the privilege. Workers also need to start refusing to sign egregiously bad non-compete agreements.
How would a company "pay for the privilege" of preventing you from transferring their trade secrets without being able to enforce non-competes?
P.S. Non-competes should have nothing to do with trade secrets; those should be covered by an NDA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that the idea behind such employee agreements is that they encourage the sharing of new ideas within companies, as employees will not 'hold the ideas back' to use when they go off and start their own companies.
> I think that the idea behind such employee agreements is that they encourage the sharing of new ideas within companies, as employees will not 'hold the ideas back' to use when they go off and start their own companies. It's up to the company to provide incentive for workers to "share new ideas" by rewarding innovation within the company, not limiting where the employee can work. Of course, most companies don't do t…
IANAL but my understanding is that non-competes are essentially unenforceable in Texas.
I live in Texas and I'm interested to know if this is actually true. Asking for a friend.
The general gist is that, yes, they are enforceable. The legislature keeps pushing for them, and the courts have, at various times, pushed back against them. There are limitations on them, but you'd have to talk to an attorney to figure out what they are -- I don't remember exactly what my attorney said. I do know that my attorney said my fairly typical non-compete probably would hold up in court.
While I signed this one, I've just flat out refused to sign them in the past. People seem to have the idea that the employment agreement is set in stone. For some companies it might be, but I've had some success pushing back against clauses I didn't like.
Non-competes, the most anti-innovation, anti-skilled worker, anti-free market, anti-business and anti-American thing in working today. Non-competes are protectionism for larger businesses over small/medium businesses. As a freelancer, contractor and self-employed business owner/worker, please make these illegal, tired of these. The worst part about non-competes is they are blanket protectionism usually and up to 2+ y…
From your comments I gather you might not understand the problem. Were Soft Engs simply to do 'work' then you would be absolutely right. But in a world of IP ... it's a different story. Company ABC brings you in, trains you on their know-how and core IP, which took a lot of struggle, $, and R&D to create - then you leave, go to a competitor, and effectively communicate and give away ABC Corps. most valuable asset. No…
If the person from your quantum computer example gets fired with non-compete, it would mean being forced out of he field with 100% certainty. Quite a leverage for a company.
In my opinion, there is still enough stuff out there benefiting corps over employees even if non-competes go away.