6 ms·

Massachusetts is doing some good steps to better the work environment and entrepreneurship. This is a nice to have in negotiations and MA challenging non-compet

Massachusetts is doing some good steps to better the work environment and entrepreneurship. This is a nice to have in negotiations and MA challenging non-competes are great things to change[1]. Non-competes are extremely anti-innovation, anti-worker, anti-business and really anti-American. Workers that are skilled cannot be owned. Good knowledgable workers should be compensated to keep them around, not fear of legal threat of using skills they developed. Non-competes need to go away everywhere. [1] http://fortune.com/2016/06/30/massachusetts-non-compete-passes/ http://fortune.com/2016/06/30/massachusetts-non-compete-pass...

lsllc 10y ago
Sadly, the MA house & senate couldn't reconcile their two versions of the non-compete bill and it died in committee: https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/07/31/noncompete-changes-founder-legislature-frantic-end/W0rbVNv2Cqe0dCScOVD5SI/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/07/31/noncompete-c... These reform attempts have been going on for years in MA and never make it into law.
- exhilaration 10y ago
  California's Chamber of Commerce should buy billboard space outside of MIT and Harvard highlighting this, it's a huge incentive for new grads to move to California instead of taking jobs in Massachusetts.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > California's Chamber of Commerce should buy billboard space outside of MIT and Harvard highlighting this Since employers (who make up the CoC) in California often try to get people to sign non-competes that are unenforceable in California, and to restrain their behavior after having signed them based on the misperception that the agreement is enforceable, its unlikely that the CoC would trumpet publicly the fact that such agremeents are not enforceable in CA as a positive thing.
mindvirus 10y ago
I think non competes could be done if they were required to be paid at say 150% of comp in the past year, and the employee would continue to be considered an employee for the duration for the purposes of bonuses and equity vesting. This way, if there was an employee for whom it was worth it for you business to bench, you could do it, but it would be expensive enough to only apply to truly key employees.
- TheCowboy 10y ago
  Keeping an employee out of the market for even a year is extremely detrimental to that employee's career. Skills atrophy and domain-specific knowledge fades. And past income is not an indicator of actual value or future income. The idea of simply limiting it to "competitors" is difficult to determine, since it's easy for any company to call anyone a competitor. It would simply allow contracts to exist that would be cost prohibitive for employees to challenge. If a business wants to prevent high turnover and on-going poaching, then it should be the one bumping up pay to 150% of the previous year, otherwise they're paying below market wages for their industry.
  - mindvirus 10y ago
    I mean I think that people will survive. I would think with 150% pay one should be able to stay up to date, and I think that the non-compete would be a reasonable explanation for the gap. If you offered for friends 150% of their pay to not work for a year, how many would say yes? Go get a master's degree, travel the world, write OSS, etc. I bet 90%+. I don't even think that you'd have to limit it to competitors in this case either - it could be a blanket "we have the option to bench you for up to a year" clause. I think that if non-competes were paid at a multiple like this, companies would think very hard before enforcing them, and it would work out to the employee's advantage.

lsllc 10y ago

Sadly, the MA house & senate couldn't reconcile their two versions of the non-compete bill and it died in committee: https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/07/31/noncompete-changes-founder-legislature-frantic-end/W0rbVNv2Cqe0dCScOVD5SI/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/07/31/noncompete-c... These reform attempts have been going on for years in MA and never make it into law.

exhilaration 10y ago
California's Chamber of Commerce should buy billboard space outside of MIT and Harvard highlighting this, it's a huge incentive for new grads to move to California instead of taking jobs in Massachusetts.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > California's Chamber of Commerce should buy billboard space outside of MIT and Harvard highlighting this Since employers (who make up the CoC) in California often try to get people to sign non-competes that are unenforceable in California, and to restrain their behavior after having signed them based on the misperception that the agreement is enforceable, its unlikely that the CoC would trumpet publicly the fact that such agremeents are not enforceable in CA as a positive thing.

mindvirus 10y ago

I think non competes could be done if they were required to be paid at say 150% of comp in the past year, and the employee would continue to be considered an employee for the duration for the purposes of bonuses and equity vesting. This way, if there was an employee for whom it was worth it for you business to bench, you could do it, but it would be expensive enough to only apply to truly key employees.

TheCowboy 10y ago
Keeping an employee out of the market for even a year is extremely detrimental to that employee's career. Skills atrophy and domain-specific knowledge fades. And past income is not an indicator of actual value or future income. The idea of simply limiting it to "competitors" is difficult to determine, since it's easy for any company to call anyone a competitor. It would simply allow contracts to exist that would be cost prohibitive for employees to challenge. If a business wants to prevent high turnover and on-going poaching, then it should be the one bumping up pay to 150% of the previous year, otherwise they're paying below market wages for their industry.
- mindvirus 10y ago
  I mean I think that people will survive. I would think with 150% pay one should be able to stay up to date, and I think that the non-compete would be a reasonable explanation for the gap. If you offered for friends 150% of their pay to not work for a year, how many would say yes? Go get a master's degree, travel the world, write OSS, etc. I bet 90%+. I don't even think that you'd have to limit it to competitors in this case either - it could be a blanket "we have the option to bench you for up to a year" clause. I think that if non-competes were paid at a multiple like this, companies would think very hard before enforcing them, and it would work out to the employee's advantage.