9 ms·

I've been thinking of a mutual defense society for startups in Washington who in good faith hire someone and the employee is then threatened by Amazon or Micros

by rdl 10y ago

I've been thinking of a mutual defense society for startups in Washington who in good faith hire someone and the employee is then threatened by Amazon or Microsoft, as a former employer, on non compete grounds. I suspect if you were willing to completely go to war over a hire, you could ultimately get noncompetes invalidated. The problem is the chilling effect on marginal hires -- it usually isn't worth going all the way on hiring someone when you have other options, and even when it is, it makes sense to settle and move on (for both sides). (From what I've heard, Amazon is particularly egregious in enforcing noncompetes. I believe they are an unconscionable and unconstitutional restraint on individual liberty, and believe the federal courts would agree, as well as the court of public opinion.)

aetherson 10y ago
What is your basis for believing that federal courts would agree?
- st3v3r 10y ago
  They generally take a dim view of a company trying to prevent someone from earning a living.
tacostakohashi 10y ago
Perhaps the main thing such a society could do is maintain a website with data about employers that have non-compete clauses in their employment contracts, and the extent to which they try to enforce them (like Chilling Effects, but for employers). If prospective hires for such companies knew that they would be seen as damaged goods on the employment market as a result of working for a certain company, it would influence their choice of employers, especially in the common scenario of having a few offers to choose between and not having much else to separate them with.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Agreed. It's always a shame that the response to purported market failures is either (1) attempt to regulate directly or (2) do nothing, rather than (3) attempt to fix market failure through narrow means.
  - DasIch 10y ago
    Are non-competes somehow acceptable when the supply of potential employees is higher? If the answer to that isn't "Yes" it's clearly not a market failure. This isn't just theoretical by the way. There are quite a few cases of companies with non-competes forced on low-income employees often without them understanding the ramifications. Non-competes prevent competition and therefore stand fundamentally in opposition to a free(-ish) market. There is no reasonable response but to either ban them completely or force companies to pay employees an income for as long as the non-compete is in effect.
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      > Are non-competes somehow acceptable when the supply of potential employees is higher? If the answer to that isn't "Yes" it's clearly not a market failure. > This isn't just theoretical by the way. There are quite a few cases of companies with non-competes forced on low-income employees often without them understanding the ramifications. There are many more kinds of market failures besides lack of competition. The one you suggest here is information asymmetry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry > There is no reasonable response Uh oh. The folks who disagree with you aren't just wrong, they're unreasonable...
      - st3v3r 10y ago
        If you believe that a company should be able to have any say whatsoever on what a person does after they've left the employ of that company, then yes, you are unreasonable.
        marcoperaza 10y ago
- HarryHirsch 10y ago
  Sounds nice in theory, but in practice the greater part of offers at the high-end employers, like Amazon, Google, Facebook, is made through referrals or internships. Everyone who signs up has the full picture already. I just can't see this work.
  - pm24601 10y ago
    A lot of times employers say "This is industry standard." or "Everyone else has the same sort of agreement." If such a website listed companies that good/no non-compete clauses, it gives ammunition for prospective employees. Esp people with multiple offers, during the negotiation, the candidate can point to a competing offer from a company with no non-compete clause.
    - HarryHirsch 10y ago
      The common piece of advice that you get is to run your employment contract past a lawyer. That's good advice. If the landshark is any good they'll tell you what is industry standard and what is overreach. You don't need no website, you need a professional network and some sense.
      - dredmorbius 10y ago
        Porque no los dos? Having and hiring your own expert to negotiate helps. But shining some very bright sunlight on practices and abuses helps as well. The more Amazon (and its recruiters) hear "I don't work for assholes", the better. Markets rely on well-informed participants. Also Microsoft. And, on different grounds, Oracle. And Google, Intel, Cisco, and Apple ("anti-poaching" market collusion -- the case is still ongoing AFAIK, though I've not been following closely). I've many reasons for avoiding the industry, but these are among them.
        WildUtah 10y ago
        "Porque no los dos?" ¿Por qué no los dos?
- umanwizard 10y ago
  Unconstitutional according to what legal argument? (I'm not disagreeing with you, just curious)
  - chrisbennet 10y ago
    Restraint of trade? http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-restraint-of-trade/ http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-restraint-of-tra...
    - umanwizard 10y ago
      That article doesn't talk about constitutionality at all.
      - chrisbennet 10y ago
        Oh, you're right. I don't know how that legal argument derives from constitution.
        Bartweiss 10y ago
        As is usually the answer with business, it's the Commerce Clause. ("Congress shall have the power... to regulate commerce... among the several states") It's a basically open-ended constitutional grant to regulate business, with the only caveat being that it's restricted to activities which affect the flow of commerce across state lines.
        umanwizard 10y ago
        That would give Congress the power to regulate these contracts; it wouldn't make them unconstitutional automatically, unless there's some argument I'm missing.
        Bartweiss 10y ago
        True enough, I'm not sure why the word 'unconstitutional' was used. This seems to be a pretty clear case of "laws enabled by the commerce clause", so all it would take is a repeal of Sherman to change the situation.
- patmcguire 10y ago
  I would compare it to "I Paid a Bribe" in that they need a bit of secrecy http://www.ipaidabribe.com/ http://www.ipaidabribe.com/
- bunnymancer 10y ago
  Problem is that companies of that size are selling "Your dream and life!" and not a job. With 200k on the table and a plethora of perks, nobody thinks "Yeah no, I'll need to pass this up because I might quit in 5-10 years and go to another somewhat similar company".
tabio 10y ago
Heard where?
- rdl 10y ago
  Other employers in WA.
tabio 10y ago
Were you thinking of something like the society mentioned i the article? > So Mr. Johnson has started a single-issue union organizing campaign, EARN, for Employee Association to Renegotiate Noncompetes, and is collecting signatures at a website, noncompetes.org. > The goal, Mr. Johnson said, is to create a “pop-up union” that would force EMC to abandon the use of most noncompete pacts.
milesward 10y ago
THIS.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by rdl 10y ago

aetherson 10y ago

What is your basis for believing that federal courts would agree?

st3v3r 10y ago
They generally take a dim view of a company trying to prevent someone from earning a living.

tacostakohashi 10y ago

Perhaps the main thing such a society could do is maintain a website with data about employers that have non-compete clauses in their employment contracts, and the extent to which they try to enforce them (like Chilling Effects, but for employers). If prospective hires for such companies knew that they would be seen as damaged goods on the employment market as a result of working for a certain company, it would influence their choice of employers, especially in the common scenario of having a few offers to choose between and not having much else to separate them with.

jessriedel 10y ago
Agreed. It's always a shame that the response to purported market failures is either (1) attempt to regulate directly or (2) do nothing, rather than (3) attempt to fix market failure through narrow means.
- DasIch 10y ago
  Are non-competes somehow acceptable when the supply of potential employees is higher? If the answer to that isn't "Yes" it's clearly not a market failure. This isn't just theoretical by the way. There are quite a few cases of companies with non-competes forced on low-income employees often without them understanding the ramifications. Non-competes prevent competition and therefore stand fundamentally in opposition to a free(-ish) market. There is no reasonable response but to either ban them completely or force companies to pay employees an income for as long as the non-compete is in effect.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    > Are non-competes somehow acceptable when the supply of potential employees is higher? If the answer to that isn't "Yes" it's clearly not a market failure. > This isn't just theoretical by the way. There are quite a few cases of companies with non-competes forced on low-income employees often without them understanding the ramifications. There are many more kinds of market failures besides lack of competition. The one you suggest here is information asymmetry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry > There is no reasonable response Uh oh. The folks who disagree with you aren't just wrong, they're unreasonable...
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      If you believe that a company should be able to have any say whatsoever on what a person does after they've left the employ of that company, then yes, you are unreasonable.
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
HarryHirsch 10y ago
Sounds nice in theory, but in practice the greater part of offers at the high-end employers, like Amazon, Google, Facebook, is made through referrals or internships. Everyone who signs up has the full picture already. I just can't see this work.
- pm24601 10y ago
  A lot of times employers say "This is industry standard." or "Everyone else has the same sort of agreement." If such a website listed companies that good/no non-compete clauses, it gives ammunition for prospective employees. Esp people with multiple offers, during the negotiation, the candidate can point to a competing offer from a company with no non-compete clause.
  - HarryHirsch 10y ago
    The common piece of advice that you get is to run your employment contract past a lawyer. That's good advice. If the landshark is any good they'll tell you what is industry standard and what is overreach. You don't need no website, you need a professional network and some sense.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Porque no los dos? Having and hiring your own expert to negotiate helps. But shining some very bright sunlight on practices and abuses helps as well. The more Amazon (and its recruiters) hear "I don't work for assholes", the better. Markets rely on well-informed participants. Also Microsoft. And, on different grounds, Oracle. And Google, Intel, Cisco, and Apple ("anti-poaching" market collusion -- the case is still ongoing AFAIK, though I've not been following closely). I've many reasons for avoiding the industry, but these are among them.
      - WildUtah 10y ago
        "Porque no los dos?" ¿Por qué no los dos?
umanwizard 10y ago
Unconstitutional according to what legal argument? (I'm not disagreeing with you, just curious)
- chrisbennet 10y ago
  Restraint of trade? http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-restraint-of-trade/ http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-restraint-of-tra...
  - umanwizard 10y ago
    That article doesn't talk about constitutionality at all.
    - chrisbennet 10y ago
      Oh, you're right. I don't know how that legal argument derives from constitution.
      - Bartweiss 10y ago
        As is usually the answer with business, it's the Commerce Clause. ("Congress shall have the power... to regulate commerce... among the several states") It's a basically open-ended constitutional grant to regulate business, with the only caveat being that it's restricted to activities which affect the flow of commerce across state lines.
        umanwizard 10y ago
        That would give Congress the power to regulate these contracts; it wouldn't make them unconstitutional automatically, unless there's some argument I'm missing.
        Bartweiss 10y ago
        True enough, I'm not sure why the word 'unconstitutional' was used. This seems to be a pretty clear case of "laws enabled by the commerce clause", so all it would take is a repeal of Sherman to change the situation.
patmcguire 10y ago
I would compare it to "I Paid a Bribe" in that they need a bit of secrecy http://www.ipaidabribe.com/ http://www.ipaidabribe.com/
bunnymancer 10y ago
Problem is that companies of that size are selling "Your dream and life!" and not a job. With 200k on the table and a plethora of perks, nobody thinks "Yeah no, I'll need to pass this up because I might quit in 5-10 years and go to another somewhat similar company".

tabio 10y ago

Heard where?

rdl 10y ago
Other employers in WA.

tabio 10y ago

Were you thinking of something like the society mentioned i the article? > So Mr. Johnson has started a single-issue union organizing campaign, EARN, for Employee Association to Renegotiate Noncompetes, and is collecting signatures at a website, noncompetes.org. > The goal, Mr. Johnson said, is to create a “pop-up union” that would force EMC to abandon the use of most noncompete pacts.

milesward 10y ago

THIS.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]