U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by Ethan_Mick » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:19 PM UTC

Good.

I've seen over and over this harm friends in frustrating ways. Tech aside, non-competes in other industries are completely insane. My wife is an optometrist and all local shops have draconic noncompetes you are forced to sign. If you leave the shop you can't work within 30 miles (or more!) of that location.

I've had friends move entire cities just so they can get out of a terrible work situation. Worse, I've had friends stay in bad situations because their noncomplete would force them to move or drive way too far for work.

And since everyone does it, they're resigned to "it's just the way it is" and nobody wants to risk being sued.

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

#92

Post by jakeinspace » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:21 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #73

notch656c wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should be reciprocal if it exists. I.e. if the employee leaves, the company would be barred from hiring anyone else for any remotely similar tasks. Make them taste their own medicine and decide if it's worth it.

They'd hire for a different role and "transfer" the person.

This is the perfect use case for anonymous tips receiving a percentage of the fine.

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

#93

Post by mywittyname » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:21 PM UTC

LanceH wrote: post #14

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.

Why shouldn't Congress be able to delegate powers? Congress writes the laws and it seems appropriate that they should be able to write a law that allows a group they delegate to write and enforce regulations on their behalf. Especially when the scope of such laws is so narrowly and explicitly defined.

Do you really expect Congresspeople to have the educational background necessary to regulate agricultural products, automobile emissions, and how medical testing is conducted? Do you really want AoC or MTG deciding which medicine you can take? Remember the ACA/Obamacare debacle? Without agencies, the entire government becomes a series of "let's pass the bill to see what's in it" laws.

The whole point of delegation is that experts make the important decisions, and Congress approves a leader for the department that is accountable to them for oversight. Requiring Congress to bring every decision an agency makes to the floor for a discussion and vote is akin to having the Board of Directors of a company approve and modify every PR it Github.

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

#94

Post by affyboi » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:21 PM UTC

chaoz_ wrote: post #71

Would be interesting to see how contracts in HFT are going to change. From what I heard, when some specialists (e.g. hardware folks) are changing jobs, then the firm is likely to lose an "edge" as competitors will have access to similar technology/knowledge. Garden leave helps to mitigate this effect. If non-competes are banned, then TCs are (probably) going to rise even more.

For quant finance and HFT noncompetes usually pay out pretty generously

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

#95

Post by endisneigh » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:22 PM UTC

I disagree with banning noncompetes. The issue IMO isn't noncompetes, it's the fact that an employer doesn't have to pay.

The rule should be that they can make you not compete, but you must be compensated monthly at your salary level prior to departure.

A non compete without having to pay is having your cake and eating it to so to speak.

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

#96

Post by seneca » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:23 PM UTC

simplotek wrote: post #85

giantg2 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many things that still resemble feudalism. Per capita tax, property tax, conservation easements on deeds, zoning, etc. I'm not saying these things are necessarily good or bad. Just saying that most laws around income, taxes, and land have their roots in feudalism. And of course the ruling class still make themselves well to do off of the hard work of their subjects, just not to the same degree as kings. And…

> There are many things that still resemble feudalism. Per capita tax, property tax, conservation easements on deeds, zoning, etc. Nonsense. Contributing back to society doesn't even register as a concern when your employer can force you to not have any alternative to work for him under his term, and apply harsh penalties to you and your loved ones if you step out of line. These nonsensical anarchist tropes only come…

Your reply is nonsense much more than the one you're replying to. Voluntarily entering a contract with bad terms has a lot less in common with feudalism than heavy handed government does. It's fine that you prefer the authoritarian government, but it doesn't change what feudalism was.

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

#97

Post by rubyn00bie » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:23 PM UTC

donatj wrote: post #50

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.

> anti-free-market policy I go back and forth on that. It seems like the free market ideal would be to allow them and if people didn't like them they wouldn't sign them. No one telling anyone what to do. It certainly hasn't panned out that way though.

No. Well at least in capitalism, that is a big no. There are no barriers to entry or exit the market in "real" capitalism (which no one has or has seen). This includes non-competes as it does any other barriers which distort the market.

But none of that matters when most people still don't understand profit vs economic profit.

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

#98

Post by ericbarrett » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:23 PM UTC

ecshafer wrote: post #21

Non-Competes being legal is only acceptable I think if the worker will continued being paid for the period of the non-compete. I can see reasons that non-competes exist, but those reasons don't really make sense in a world where patents and trademarks also exist. The fact that they are essentially illegal in California, and California's economy works shows that they are unnecessary and also don't hinder technological…

My understanding is that this arrangement is common in finance. However the worker is not given benefits or bonuses during this time. Since private health insurance is massively expensive and bonus comp can be a significant fraction of one's pay in the field, it can still be onerous.

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

#99

Post by notch656c » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:24 PM UTC

sailfast wrote: post #81

ElevenLathe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good to let agencies make laws if they make good laws. It's bad to let agencies make laws if they make bad laws. The liberal obsession with process is what lets the far right make inroads everywhere, since they don't share it.

Agencies do not make laws, full stop. Agencies are empowered by congress via laws to regulate industries. These regulations can be challenged in court as to whether they have overreached the scope of their regulation written in the original law, but they are not making laws. Agencies should not make laws (in the United States). Even good ones.

They do in all but name. One day a polymer80 frame in a box with a jig is a gun. Another day it is not. The only difference is a letter from an ATF agent.

Lawmakers make laws intentionally vague to hide their nefarious motives, and then let the courts "determine" the agencies can "clarify." Then the lawmakers point their fingers at the evil agencies while secretly laughing it was all in their plan to offload blame for what they planned all along.

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

#100

Post by thwayunion » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 4:24 PM UTC

chaoz_ wrote: post #71

Would be interesting to see how contracts in HFT are going to change. From what I heard, when some specialists (e.g. hardware folks) are changing jobs, then the firm is likely to lose an "edge" as competitors will have access to similar technology/knowledge. Garden leave helps to mitigate this effect. If non-competes are banned, then TCs are (probably) going to rise even more.

> when some specialists (e.g. hardware folks) are changing jobs, then the firm is likely to lose an "edge" as competitors will have access to similar technology/knowledge.

So without the employee the firm can't compete? If that's really true, then that employee should be able to extract as much blood as they want. They are literally the keystone of the business.

The good news is that the FTC rule would allow the firm to enforce a non-compete by giving the employee a 25% equity stake. That seems like a fair trade in exchange for with-holding such incredibly valuable specialized knowledge from the market.