15 ms·

Idaho has made it easier for companies to enforce noncompete agreements

• chipgap98 9y ago
  With laws like these, I don't understand why anyone would take a job in Idaho. It seems like you're just setting yourself up for a bad situation
  • twobyfour 9y ago
    Probably because you or your family are already established in Idaho? Grew up there? Elder relatives to care for? Spouse offered a hard to come by research position at a university?
    • sverige 9y ago
      Socially/politically conservative? Hate cities? Love the outdoors? Like to live somewhere affordab.... oh shit, the Californians have arrived with their bags of money.
      • jonnycoder 9y ago
        Be careful you don't want to turn out like Oregon and attract all the rich hippies. Californian here who hunts in Idaho and it's my favorite state to visit. It still feels like the last secret place in America.
        • UnpossibleJim 9y ago
          Hunting in Idaho is great, but would you take a job and relocate there? Granted, I'm in Washington, which is somewhere in the middle, but we're moving towards California's view (just like everything else).
          • jonnycoder 9y ago
            Yes, but local friends and family is biggest preventer of moving.
          • phamilton 9y ago
            Boise is my back pocket destination. If/when I get sick of California nonsense, I'd move to Boise in a heartbeat. No family there, just like the low key outdoor culture and low cost of living.
            • CydeWeys 9y ago
              Idaho is so culturally and socially conservative though, #3 behind just Wyoming and Utah. I don't see it being a good fit for many SVers for that reason. I wouldn't mind visiting but living there long term sounds rough.
              • cweagans 9y ago
                The majority of Idaho is, but Boise is not. Source: I've lived in Boise all my life.
              • phamilton 9y ago
                Some of us SVers find a socially conservative environment a breath of fresh air. It's a form of diversity not encountered much in SF.
                • CydeWeys 9y ago
                  Having your personal human rights respected is about a lot more than just what a place "feels" like. There are plenty of SVers who, if they go to Idaho, will be discriminated against in a variety of ways, whether it's because they're immigrants, or LGBTQ, or a person of color, or like weed, or need good health insurance, or might need an abortion, aren't religious, want good public education for their children, etc. None of this can be "made up for".
  • skrap 9y ago
    I can think of a bunch of reasons why one might end up in such a situation, all of which point to systemic failures to protect the free movement of people: 1) Unfamiliarity with the law. People moving from states which protect the marketplace for employment from non-compete abuse (e.g. California) may not realize that such "agreements" even exist. I didn't, and was pretty surprised by them when I left CA after 7 years in SV. 2) Being required to sign a non-compete _after_ you've already begun the job, which is (AFAIK) legal many places, though I don't know about Idaho. 3) Asymmetric power in the "agreement", especially when larger employers (with legal departments) are involved. The scare quotes are there because the parties agreeing to the contract are not negotiating from comparable positions of strength, so I think the word "agreement" is a post-truth-type word. IMO, a free market won't remain free without public policy support. I guess Idaho prefers a different sort of arrangement. That's their choice. Welcome to my personal blacklist, Idaho.
    • slaymaker1907 9y ago
      It's often not legal to require it after the fact as a requirement for continued employment since it is not a valid contract unless both parties receive something of value. I believe this is termed as consideration in contract law.
      • skrap 9y ago
        I believe in this case that "continued employment" is considered to be the benefit derived by the employee. Meaning "sign this or we will terminate you" is basically an ok thing to say, at least in some states.
• fsloth 9y ago
  Sheesh, what a perverse view of operation of companies. Non competes are silly beyond measure. I suppose the charitable view is that the legislators imagine that the employers have some magic beans which no one else could have beyond theft of the original beans. In practice all this does is increase leverage of employers over employees while stifling growth by discouraging cross insemination of ideas between corporations. The only winner is the employer who would fail to keep his employees through offering a good workplace. Serfs were legally bound to the land on which they worked but could not own. Aren't non competes nothing but just a step towards serfdom?
  • logicallee 9y ago
    >Non competes are silly beyond measure. Maybe. Maybe not. Here is a mental exercise for you. Suppose that you meet a cofounder with a fantastic idea, that requires a modest amount of research to work the kinks out of, and you bring almost zero value to the equation other than having the vision to know that their idea is great - and of course, your willingness to work 100 hours per week until you're both rich off of it. They bring almost all of the value to the equation and have a great resume and background and degrees in that field. You're a code monkey or something. maybe you're a good one, but you certainly don't do the work of fifty or a hundred engineers. maybe 3-5. sometimes. you're nothing special. so you enter into a contract with your partner under some terms, doesn't really matter what. you're cofounders. Now here is the question: what is the outcome for you if as you begin to prove the technology together your cofounder gets a fantastic, amazing offer from a huge mutibillion dollar company, for millions of dollars, to leave you, join them, and compete with you. They don't want you, you don't add any value. Your company doesn't have any assets or IP. They just want your cofounder to go leave you and compete directly with the company you poured a lot of time into together and co-own. if your cofounder does that, then this is awful for you. you've just wasted whatever time you spent working together as you don't bring all that much to the equation. your company becomes non-viable. So how do you avoid this? Well you can trust each other: you can straight-up say at the start of the partnership, hey (cofounder's name), I know you bring a lot more value to this venture than I do and I am honored that you are letting me help you bring this to market. Before we enter our partnership, will you PROMISE me that you are not just going to leave and start directly competing with us? Your cofounder says, sure, okay, I promise. If they're a person of their word, this effectively solves the problem you had been having. The thing is, this is a non-compete agreement. That's literally what it is. The legalities don't matter. Do you guys think this agreement is "wrong"? After all your friend is severely constrained and must refuse offers of millions of dollars to leave your joint company and compete with you, if they keep their word.... I am not asking about whether courts should enforce these contracts. I'm asking whether the agreement itself is something that is wrong to enter. Is it wrong to ask for and receive that promise? ----- EDIT: Despite my very clear signposting, a lot of people are misinterpreting this. I was asking what you all thought about the morality of such an "extreme" example. I did not include any value judgment.
• scribu 9y ago
  Compare with indentured labour: > An indentured servant or indentured labor is an employee (indenturee) within a system of unfree labor who is bound by a contract (indenture) to work for a particular employer for a fixed period. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude
  • kasey_junk 9y ago
    So not at all the same? Look this is a stupid law that is bad for both employers & employees in Idaho but it's not indentured servitude.
    • wavefunction 9y ago
      The fixed contract sounds likes a non-compete to me. You're working for the company after your employment has ended, with no compensation.
    • scribu 9y ago
      I didn't say they're identical, but they do seem similar in spirit. Indentured servitude: you either obey the contract, or go to jail. Non-compete: you either obey the contract, or go work in a different industry (in effect, become poorer, since you have to start over).
      • tptacek 9y ago
        What contract related to employment can't you say that about?
    • crdoconnor 9y ago
      It increases employers' leverage over their employees. That isn't bad for employers. Even employers who are restricted from hiring will benefit in the form of lower wages and a more pliable workforce.
      • kasey_junk 9y ago
• tyingq 9y ago
  Peripheral, but I found it funny that a salesperson would get "Trust No One" tattooed on themselves in a place where clients could read it while she talks with them.
  • urethrafranklin 9y ago
    You can take the woman out of Queens...
• senectus1 9y ago
  I don't understand how the american voters allow shit like this and the ridiculous "at will" law. etc to fly in the US. your country seems to not want to ditch the slavery concept... its astounding to watch a once great country eat itself alive like that.
  • dwrowe 9y ago
    What is the issue with "at will"? That benefits both sides - unless I'm unique in the fact that I've never had a negative experience with it?
    • wavefunction 9y ago
      What's the benefit to the employee?
      • ghaff 9y ago
        The employee can take another job whenever they want to? The alternative is a contract that says I can't fire you absent these specified reasons for X period of time and you can't leave absent these specified reasons no matter how much you hate it.
        • dredmorbius 9y ago
          Given the inherent imbalance of power, another alternative is to remedy that imbalance by giving the favour of flexibility to the worker rather than the employer.
      • CalRobert 9y ago
        Well, it's a small thing but being able to leave on a moment's notice and not having it considered a breach of contract is helpful. I was a bit surprised to find that instead of being a matter of courtesy, I'm contractually obligated to give 6 weeks' notice before leaving. I don't mind, really, but it's still kind of ridiculous.
• pmarreck 9y ago
  Article title is misleading. This article is solely about noncompete clauses in employee contracts, while title makes it seem that Idaho employees are subject to serfdom. I fall on the side of "noncompete clauses are stupid." Provide a better job or GTFO.
  • twobyfour 9y ago
    Don't non-compete clauses make employment a form of serfdom in a way?
    • ghaff 9y ago
      No. They actually don't. There are a number of limitations that companies may put in employment agreements including non-solicitation, NDAs, etc. that most people think are reasonable. The issue with non-competes is that many, including myself, think they're a bridge too far absent appropriate agreed-to compensation in most cases.
      • tcbawo 9y ago
        The burden of interpeting what defines competition usually falls on the courts. Most cases are favorable to a former employee when their livelihood is at stake.
        • ghaff 9y ago
          That may (or may not) be true. But in my experience, at least some percentage of people bound by non-competes elect to just be on the beach rather than going the legal route. Some companies have a reputation for consistently litigating these. In addition, even if the employee/ex-employee is willing to risk it, lots of potential new employers aren't. I worked for a small firm for a number of years and we wouldn't even entertain having discussions with someone if they were bound by any remotely relevant non-compete.
• mattm 9y ago
  Non competes would be fine as long as the employer needs to provide compensation for the duration of it after you've left. If an employer leaving will really harm your business then you should be completely fine with paying to avoid it.
  • danpalmer 9y ago
    Many companies, particularly in areas like finance, or in C levels of management, will do this, paying employees for anywhere from a month to a year to not work. I’m not sure how much they can be enforced during that period, but as far as I’m aware the amounts of money are usually large enough for there to not be much of a problem enforcing them.
    • darkr 9y ago
      Yeah, this is euphemistically called "gardening leave" in the U.K, and is normally full salary.
      • giobox 9y ago
        Former U.K. worker and lawyer: Gardening leave for sure happens, but basic non-competes (or "restrictive covenants" as they get called over there) without any kind of remuneration are fairly common in U.K. employment contracts for skilled workers too. Successful enforcement is almost always a question for a court to decide, and many times an employer simply won't bother trying, but provided the employer can demonstrate a business interest to protect, the restriction isn't too widely defined and that the time scale is not "unreasonable" they stand a good chance of succeeding. I'm by no means endorsing this - it simply is what it always has been in the UK for a long time now.
        • walshemj 9y ago
          But in the UK you cant be restricted from plying your trade which it only some highly paid senior individuals and you MUST be paid for it this is from the GC of an organisation specializing in hr/ir issues
• BeetleB 9y ago
  >While its economy is known for agriculture — potatoes are among the state’s biggest exports — Idaho has a long history as a technology hub. Nitpick, but: Idaho's largest component of the economy, as well as its largest exports, is technology and not agriculture. It is more of a tech state than an agricultural one. (Sorry to all Idahoans who don't want this publicized!)
  • CydeWeys 9y ago
    Maybe not for much longer at this rate, though. They seem to be doing everything possible to kill their tech industry rather than grow it. California indisputably has the best tech industry in the country and it also has the most stringent regulations against non-competes; it really makes you wonder what the legislators are even thinking if cultivating their tech industry is something they actually killed about. Also, Idaho is a Republican state, so you naively expect they'd be all rah-rah free market and competition, but this appears to just be pro-big-business and actually quite anti-competitive.
    • connorl33t 9y ago
      I live in Boise, and work at a software startup. I personally do not think this will have much of an effect on the "startup scene" because the vast majority of the people working at companies that would possibly enforce non-competes such as Micron or HP do not come to work at "startups", because of performance on skills-tests or cultural fit. I've met a lot of the leadership for various startups in the Treasure Valley, and suing someone over changing employers would be the antithesis of the values they hold, there is one exception I could think of - BlackBox VR (very early stage) somebody leaving them for a competitor could be pretty bad! I have met startups brag about losing employees to Amazon and Google though.
      • CydeWeys 9y ago
        I don't think that the startup tech companies and non-startup tech companies are that different of a world. Something that negatively influences one in a given area will negatively influence the other. And people do move between them quite frequently (this has been my experience in DC and NYC at least, I can't speak to Boise).
• Clubber 9y ago
  So for new tech people getting started in their careers, make sure you save up 4-6 months of income so you don't have to put up with this garbage. They say money is power, but before that, it's freedom. Don't allow yourself to be pushed around. If you aren't strong enough mentally yet to do it for yourself, do it for the other people in the field who aren't strong enough. If they offer to pay you to train your replacement, tell them to pound sand and walk out. Be prepared financially. If they try to force you to sign a non-compete, be willing to walk away until they make it fair and reasonable. If they try to get you to sign away all your IP, tell them no. Companies don't expect you to read that contract you are signing, and most of them just pull a boilerplate contract off the internet. Almost all of them are grossly one sided to the company. This includes taking ownership of anything you've developed in the past on your own. All of this is easy if you have 4-6 months of income saved up. You are in high demand; companies will wither on the vine without good, efficient systems running them. Now, but even more so in the future.
  • mgkimsal 9y ago
    > You are in high demand maybe. it may just be people willing to sign one-sided agreements are in high demand.
    • Clubber 9y ago
      I guarantee the majority of companies don't even know what's in that contract. They just pulled it off the internet because someone said, "Oh crap, we need an employee agreement. Google one." or "Find someone else's contract agreement." If they go through all the trouble of recruiting you, interviewing you and deciding they want you, they'll be willing to consider revising it, especially since they probably didn't give it much thought in the first place. Just raise your concerns in an intelligible way and don't be an asshole about it. I just did that for a contract. I said, "I can't give you all my inventions, I have a ton of them." They didn't even realize that was in the contract and they revised it. Poof. I got a fair agreement.
      • ryandrake 9y ago
• jmull 9y ago
  This seems short-sighted. The question, "Do I even want to work in Idaho?" Has got to be raising itself to employees and prospective employees already. Do you want to add another reason to make the easy answer no? Meanwhile, you're amassing a stockpile of unhappy employees who don't want to be working for you but feel they have no choice. Do you really want to grow the number of employees you have who are trying to do the minimum?
• ilovetux 9y ago
  Since we live in a supposedly free market where all these companies, both incumbent and startup, found successful business plans why is it now necessary to prop these companies up with new laws? Isn't it a part of the free market that if your business is not able to compete then it should die. A little cutthroat, but isn't that the dog eat dog world of business. I am against placing the burden of proof on the employee. I am more so against cementing these restrictions in laws. It would be ok with me to allow someone to enter into whatever contract they want, but this feels like a continuation the big bank bailouts and the auto bailouts just in miniature. Don't we need less laws and more comprehensible contracts to create a more level playing field. Can't we refactor the law instead of implementing these "duct-tape" fixes which only restrict the liberties of hard-working, law-abiding citizens?
• moomin 9y ago
  Non-competes are a great example of why "pro-business" isn't the same as "pro-capitalism" or "pro-economy". Making all your best qualified people unemployable is a great way to ruin your country.
  • walshemj 9y ago
    And also explains why SV was successful the "liberal" approach in CA means the workforce is more flexible
• bnolsen 9y ago
  Non competes can't normally be enforced unless the company specifially compensates you for the non compete. Punishing someone by not allowing them to be able to make a living is unjust and unfair.
  • Per_Bothner 9y ago
    Unfortunately not necessarily true - depends on the jurisdiction. Did you read the article?
• crb002 9y ago
  Blanket non-competes are asnine. You lock in unproductive workers who are unhappy and want to leave.
• Ccecil 9y ago
  I live and run a small business in North Idaho. This law was something I have been a bit concerned about. I am not employed by anyone other than myself but I am often contracted by companies to do odd jobs (repair/upgrade machines, solve small issues, work on projects, etc). There have been quite a few NDAs involved in the past which has always concerned me since there is an overlap in what I do and what they do...but now the question is do I as a contractor need to watch for this? Could a non compete slipped into a contract (in cases of tech overlap) cause me issues in my own company? How liable am I as a contractor? Or is this only in cases of employment? I suppose this is one of those laws I really need to look into. NDA is one thing...but being sued for doing what I already did as a company...or contracting to another company (competitor with differing tech for instance) would put me out of business. There is a group of people who are putting a lot of work into driving the startup scene to my area (Coeur d'Alene/Spokane) but I feel this may hinder the companies...although...it might be beneficial for the people who are actually folding the cash at the end of the day. Any insight from those more experienced would be helpful. edit: Not that it should matter. But my bread and butter comes from remote open source/openhardware projects. The locals are the only ones who have ever required an NDA.
  • ScottBurson 9y ago
    Sounds like you should talk to an attorney. The ideal would be that you build up your business to the point that you can either simply decline to sign NDAs, because you have plenty of customers who don't ask you to, or at the very least can negotiate very specific NDA terms that won't be a problem for you. But again, to do that, you'll probably need some legal advice. The simplest thing is not to sign them at all.
• droithomme 9y ago
  Noncompetes are named accurately. They make an area much less competitive. Idaho has only one meaningful tech company, and it's mentioned multiple times in the article. Analysts say its overpriced and due for a fall. It's a company that hasn't had much real innovation for a long time. Not surprising given that it is headquartered in a anti-innovation state that no highly qualified engineer in his right mind would move to due to the toxic legal environment for technologists.
• TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
  I've also been seeing more contracts with indemnity clauses that make no sense given the size of the contract. I'm a single individual working on a contract under $10k, no I will not be financially responsible for anything negative that happens. Every time so far, I've redlined that section and said it does not apply, and it has been removed.
• kafkaesq 9y ago
  And hence, greatly deter people from the idea of pulling up tent stakes + moving there to start a new life.
• tankerdude 9y ago
  Also known as: Idaho's brain drain as tech workers vote with their wallet and brains to move to a friendlier state.
• anigbrowl 9y ago
  I'm not a big fans of unions as they currently exist, but this is a good example of why tech people should organize into some sort of collective structure so as to equalize their bargaining power. At the end of the day, you're just disposable labor that will be disadvantaged at any opportunity for the sake of profit.
• csdreamer7 9y ago
  For those of you who say just walk away. Alot of people lack confidence in themselves when they start out. Alot of people are really ignorant, even in the compsci space. A non-compete harms everyone as a restrain of trade. Parents really do not educate their kids on what to watch out for-often alot of parents just do not care about kids. Schools do not, either because of a lack of classroom time or large employers lobby the state against it. Banning predatory provisions, especially non-competes, as California demonstrates, really helps develop the economy.