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

White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 421 posts

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#51

Post by sjg007 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #37
throw_away_777 wrote: post #5

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.

Among other reasons, Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, but not intrastate commerce. Congress might, say, prohibit noncompetes across state lines , but would have a harder time making the case for a noncompete prohibition within a given state. Perhaps not impossible. OTOH, there are Federal standards for labour in the US under the NLRA -- National Labor Relations Act. Lay understanding of law.

They can regulate companies who do any business across state lines.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#53

Post by aikah »

nickff wrote: post #42
throw_away_777 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the point is the non-compete keeps the employee from working for a competitor, so the employer pays the salary to prevent the employee from working for a competitor. The employer chooses to either pay the salary of the employee or free them to find work elsewhere. Why is it fair that an employer can fire someone or lay someone off and keep that person from working for a year?

Why is it fair that an employee can stop working at their job or commit fraud, then immediately sell all the non-public information they have to a competitor?

> Why is it fair that an employee can stop working at their job or commit fraud, then immediately sell all the non-public information they have to a competitor?

Then sue if you have proof. What is not fair is to reduce a worker's opportunity to work when he isn't on your payroll.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#54

Post by nickff »

aikah wrote: post #53
nickff wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it fair that an employee can stop working at their job or commit fraud, then immediately sell all the non-public information they have to a competitor?

> Why is it fair that an employee can stop working at their job or commit fraud, then immediately sell all the non-public information they have to a competitor? Then sue if you have proof. What is not fair is to reduce a worker's opportunity to work when he isn't on your payroll.

You can sue people for not working at their job? There are many people who simply stop accomplishing tasks when they want to be laid off or fired.

The parent's logic would say that if someone does this, the only way to stop this 'bad employee' from selling all your non-public information is to pay (at least) their full salary indefinitely.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#55

Post by unscaled »

nickff wrote: post #42
throw_away_777 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the point is the non-compete keeps the employee from working for a competitor, so the employer pays the salary to prevent the employee from working for a competitor. The employer chooses to either pay the salary of the employee or free them to find work elsewhere. Why is it fair that an employer can fire someone or lay someone off and keep that person from working for a year?

Why is it fair that an employee can stop working at their job or commit fraud, then immediately sell all the non-public information they have to a competitor?

Why is it fair that an employer can force an employee to kill kittens and then fire the employee and prevent them from ever working when they refuse?

Do you realize that what you just said has nothing to do with Non-compete clauses?

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#56

Post by greglindahl »

sjg007 wrote: post #49
elmigranto wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, you work at a company for most of your professional life, and become an expert in a field you love. One day you are no longer employed for some reason, but due to non-compete there is no way to get a job you want, since your expertise is somewhat niche. So you are forced to build websites or sell coffee for two years. Or drop your life in US and work some other place. If the person from your quantu…

Take the job and let them sue. Scotus won't enforce a noncompete.

Non-competes are successfully enforced (outside CA) all of the time. Just take a look at the tech press, there are quite a few articles about it.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#57

Post by jomamaxx »

aikah wrote: post #50
jomamaxx wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If a company wants to keep me from working they should pay for the privilege." They are paying you. You join the company on those terms. If you don't want to join, then don't join. What they don't want you dong is taking all their IP, walking off and passing it onto a competitor. It would be extremely naive to not understand that this happens all the time. It's a tricky and nuanced problem, but it's real.

> What they don't want you dong is taking all their IP, walking off and passing it onto a competitor. Bullshit, that's what NDAs are for.

"Bullshit, that's what NDAs are for."

Totally false and completely naive.

Most knowledge and know-how is not explicit - they are often learned.

For example - suppose you worked at Nuance, and helped develop their new AI/Neural Network speech recognition system. Everything you know about Speech + AI you learned from them, in that language specific setting.

If you went to work on Google's new Speech Recognition, which is AI-based - it would basically be impossible not to pass on know how and relevant knowledge. The application-specific skills are basically IP.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#58

Post by oxide »

dmourati wrote: post #52

Massachusetts has realized that its current legislation allowing for non-competes sniffles innovation. https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/silicon-valley-keeps-winni... http://news.wgbh.org/2016/06/29/politics-government/deleo-pl...

I'm glad that non-competes are being looked at with a stink-eye, I feel it's bullshit to ask someone to sign away their right to use their skills to make a living in exchange for...using their skills to make a living.

"If I can't have you, nobody can" is the long and short of a non-compete IMO, I don't feel that's an acceptable condition in any relationship.

Maybe I misunderstand what a non-compete is, but it seems relatively straightforward. I don't think an employer is entitled to that kind of benefit, especially considering loyalty to an employer is usually rewarded with indifference at best.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#59

Post by aikah »

jomamaxx wrote: post #57
aikah wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What they don't want you dong is taking all their IP, walking off and passing it onto a competitor. Bullshit, that's what NDAs are for.

"Bullshit, that's what NDAs are for." Totally false and completely naive. Most knowledge and know-how is not explicit - they are often learned. For example - suppose you worked at Nuance, and helped develop their new AI/Neural Network speech recognition system. Everything you know about Speech + AI you learned from them, in that language specific setting. If you went to work on Google's new Speech Recognition, which…

> For example - suppose you worked at Nuance, and helped develop their new AI/Neural Network speech recognition system. Everything you know about Speech + AI you learned from them, in that language specific setting.

And the knowledge and experience you got from your previous job before Nuance ? where does it come from ? why would the buck stop at Nuance ? or the former company ? or the company before it ? your point is ridiculous. The knowledge I acquire, if it doesn't involve a company's secret is my own and no company owns it. There is no such thing as intellectual slavery which you basically promote. If you don't pay me I owe nothing more than the respect of your patents and other corporate secrets and those are covered by NDA.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#60

Post by jomamaxx »

aikah wrote: post #36
jomamaxx wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But in a world of IP ... it's a different story. If the employee violates the IP then sue him for that. No need for non-compete agreements. If you're worried the employee will steal your clients then you're not giving your clients a good deal at first place, and the employee shouldn't be prevented from working with your clients. This is a free market. Non compete agreements are completely anti-freedom of both enter…

"It doesn't matter how much R&D was created. That's the role of patents to deal with that thing."

I'm beginning to think none of you have ever worked in companies that actually produce IP.

First off - that's not what patents are for. Patents protect publicly known information - not trade secrets. And they don't do it very well. There are very few things you can defend with a patent.

What companies are concerned with is 'trade secrets' and 'know how' - and it's a serious thing.

"Then the burden of proof should lie with the previous company, there shouldn't be any possibility of preemptive clause within the former contract."

If you work at DWAVE for 5 years and learn everything you know about Quantum Computing there - and go to Google to work on Quantum Computing - then there is basically a 100% chance that you are passing on 'know how' and 'trade secrets' - otherwise - Google would not hire you.

Your comments about customers etc. are irrelevant with respect to IP issues.

If you work for ABC corp and they make a 'sales automation tool' - and you go off and build your own 'sales automation tool' - then fine. It's not about IP or trade secrets. You can do as you like.

But for other types of things, no way. You work at Nuance on Speech recognition - then you leave and build a nearly identical speech recognition system? That's probably IP theft.

There would not be any technology if IP could not be protected in some reasonable way.

I'm not suggesting that many of these contracts are crazy - and that there can be absurd limitations and weird corner cases - of course it's very tricky - but companies deserve the right to protect their IP in some manner.

Post reply on HN