Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital
1–10 of 47 posts
Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital
#2To what degree banning non-competes will fuel the tech scene in Massachusetts is tough to say - obviously there are a lot of other variables separating it from Silicon Valley - but it's nice to see that Spark is practicing what it preaches, having stopped requiring non-competes in 2007.
Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital
#3I would love to see what the folks at Harmonix think about this. If it passed, they'd probably be decimated by publishers grabbing teams of three to work on various rhythm games.
That said, I'm fully in support. :)
Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital
#4I didn't get a job at a startup in MA because they feared my last company's non-compete.
Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital
#5I dislike the government asserting that I am not a fully competent adult, capable of making my own decisions about what agreements I enter into and which I do not.
If I'm not competent to read a non-compete and agree, or not agree, to it, then why do they think that I'm competent to drive a car, or vote, or sign a lease?
Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital
#6[deleted]
Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital
#7I dislike the government asserting that I am not a fully competent adult, capable of making my own decisions about what agreements I enter into and which I do not. If I'm not competent to read a non-compete and agree, or not agree, to it, then why do they think that I'm competent to drive a car, or vote, or sign a lease?
I agree with the core of your argument, however in this instance we have private market manipulation.
In most situations the employers have more leverage then the employee. The very best hires will not accept sub par offers. But a lot of others, including some very good ones, will.
The result being that private companies influence the labor market for their own benefit and everyone else's detriment. That includes other employers and employees.
Think of non competes for utilities, as in only one cable co. can serve your area. Does that make the private market manipulation more obvious? Private market distortion is no better then public market distortion.
Cartels, non-competes, etc, are legitimate targets for government busting from my libertarian perspective.
Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital
#8I dislike the government asserting that I am not a fully competent adult, capable of making my own decisions about what agreements I enter into and which I do not. If I'm not competent to read a non-compete and agree, or not agree, to it, then why do they think that I'm competent to drive a car, or vote, or sign a lease?
It has nothing to do with your imputed (in)competence.
All a decision like this would mean is: the state of MA has decided it's not in the interests of the state of MA to enforce noncompete clauses, so from here on out it will not enforce them.
You can still sign whatever you want.
Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital
#9I didn't get a job at a startup in MA because they feared my last company's non-compete.
MA courts have a reputation for enforcing non-competes so strongly that many silicon valley companies have a blanket no MA hiring policy.
That is beginning to hurt companies in MA, whether they use non-competes or not, when they try and hire. Ultimately this hurts the state's income.
Re: Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital
#10I agree. If you feel your employee is a value to you and potentially a competitor, you ought to compensate them accordingly. Personally, I would never sign a non-compete unless there were not only adequate considerations for compensation, but also equity.