5 ms·

I still don't understand the almost violent resistance to noncompetes. If they are "you can't work otherwise" then sure... it if it's literally that you can't g

I still don't understand the almost violent resistance to noncompetes. If they are "you can't work otherwise" then sure... it if it's literally that you can't go work for a direct competitor or take their clients to start your own I don't see the issue. That's more a matter of ethics than anything else and seems perfectly reasonable for a limited period of time (6 months to a year).

kafkaesq 9y ago
I still don't understand the almost violent resistance to noncompetes. It's not "violent". It's the exact opposite of that, in fact.
Clubber 9y ago
That's the problem is they are so unfair. What if you worked for some huge conglomerate like GE. What industry does GE not compete in? Or Microsoft? Walmart? Amazon? Also, their duration is typically 2-4 years. So you can't work in any major industry that GE competes in for 4 years and you get zero compensation for it. How is that anywhere close fair or reasonable? Non-competes also include no hiring. That further limits my potential employment. If me and my buddy quit because we're sick, or bored of a place, we can't hire either other or recommend hiring each other for 2-4 years. Guess what? If you have people who can't find employment and a good chunk of their opportunity is blocked because of non-competes, guess who pays for it? Also, here's the crux of the hypocrisy. Companies are all about free market, but only when it benefits them. In a free market, I should be free to work anywhere for anyone. The only restriction would be not to divulge IP or trade secrets. I'm perfectly fine with that, but chances are, that's not what you are signing.
- thanksgiving 9y ago
  When I was younger, I used to think that non-compete meant that the company would continue to pay you the same salary as before for the duration of the non-compete. It just sounded like common sense. I was young and naive. I am not that young anymore but I still think this needs to be a nationwide law. If you want me to not work (in an industry) for a particular length of time, you ought to pay me to not work about as much as what I would have made by working. Sure, put a ceiling at 50x minimum wage (so currently $725k a year https://www.google.com/search?q=7.25*2000*50 https://www.google.com/search?q=7.25*2000*50 ) or something but this is just common sense that if you want to prevent me from working, you should pay me for the duration that I am not working.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    I agree. I would say first make it non enforceable unless the employee is a certain status with certain parameters (like ownership) and then it's some multiple of salary after X years at the company. So you couldn't extend it to someone who's been there 6 months.
KirinDave 9y ago
I really suspect you don't understand how broad tech-noncompetes are. Given the court and arbitrator's lack of expertise, we see companies arguing that any software work at all is competition. Especially for emrging high-demand fields like machine learning.
- kafkaesq 9y ago
  I really suspect you don't understand how broad tech-noncompetes are. Yeah, that's the issue basically. These things (and a lot of the golden handcuffs companies, especially inexperienced startups, like to slap on new employees - as if they didn't know any better) go way farther than anything remotely reasonable. The end result being to discourage genuine trust and collaboration, rather than to foster it.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  Is this happening a lot in the tech world? I don't mean an anecdote here and there. I did some quick google searches and it seems like non-competes are usually enforced against people in sales/marketing of some sort, taking their client list with them. That seems like a completely reasonable enforcement. The instances that make headlines in the tech world are the ones where Uber may have intentionally stolen Google tech, or at least the employee intentionally brought Google tech with them to Uber. Again, completely reasonable.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    Yes. It happens to anyone who doesn't move to California. You can Google for stories on it.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      I didn't move to California and it's never happened to me or anyone I know. I did Google for stories on it and I couldn't find any stats. Do you have any?
      - 9y ago
ScottBurson 9y ago
Compare the economic vibrancy of the Boston metro area (all the way out to Rte. 128) with the San Francisco Bay area (including Silicon Valley). Boston is a major educational hub, with some 250,000 students at a time at many universities and colleges including MIT and Harvard. And yet, the SF Bay area has left Boston in the dust when it comes to startup creation. There's nothing in Boston comparable to Apple, Google, or Facebook. And Boston was once a major hub of the computer industry, with Digital Equipment, Data General, and several smaller manufacturers -- that's all history now. This is pretty strong empirical evidence that although enforceable noncompetes may be better for existing companies, they are a drag on the regional economy. (Taking your current employer's clients is not exactly the same thing -- IANAL, but I would think that would be covered by the trade secret protections.)
- Clubber 9y ago
  This sort of thing is absolutely, 100% these incumbent companies lobbying their governments to give them a short term economic benefit at the high cost to both employees of that company, employees that work in that local economy, taxpayers in that economy, and the local economy as a whole, and even that company themselves medium term. Who would want to work in Idaho after reading this?

kafkaesq 9y ago

I still don't understand the almost violent resistance to noncompetes. It's not "violent". It's the exact opposite of that, in fact.

Clubber 9y ago

That's the problem is they are so unfair. What if you worked for some huge conglomerate like GE. What industry does GE not compete in? Or Microsoft? Walmart? Amazon? Also, their duration is typically 2-4 years. So you can't work in any major industry that GE competes in for 4 years and you get zero compensation for it. How is that anywhere close fair or reasonable? Non-competes also include no hiring. That further limits my potential employment. If me and my buddy quit because we're sick, or bored of a place, we can't hire either other or recommend hiring each other for 2-4 years. Guess what? If you have people who can't find employment and a good chunk of their opportunity is blocked because of non-competes, guess who pays for it? Also, here's the crux of the hypocrisy. Companies are all about free market, but only when it benefits them. In a free market, I should be free to work anywhere for anyone. The only restriction would be not to divulge IP or trade secrets. I'm perfectly fine with that, but chances are, that's not what you are signing.

thanksgiving 9y ago
When I was younger, I used to think that non-compete meant that the company would continue to pay you the same salary as before for the duration of the non-compete. It just sounded like common sense. I was young and naive. I am not that young anymore but I still think this needs to be a nationwide law. If you want me to not work (in an industry) for a particular length of time, you ought to pay me to not work about as much as what I would have made by working. Sure, put a ceiling at 50x minimum wage (so currently $725k a year https://www.google.com/search?q=7.25*2000*50 https://www.google.com/search?q=7.25*2000*50 ) or something but this is just common sense that if you want to prevent me from working, you should pay me for the duration that I am not working.
- Clubber 9y ago
  I agree. I would say first make it non enforceable unless the employee is a certain status with certain parameters (like ownership) and then it's some multiple of salary after X years at the company. So you couldn't extend it to someone who's been there 6 months.

KirinDave 9y ago

I really suspect you don't understand how broad tech-noncompetes are. Given the court and arbitrator's lack of expertise, we see companies arguing that any software work at all is competition. Especially for emrging high-demand fields like machine learning.

kafkaesq 9y ago
I really suspect you don't understand how broad tech-noncompetes are. Yeah, that's the issue basically. These things (and a lot of the golden handcuffs companies, especially inexperienced startups, like to slap on new employees - as if they didn't know any better) go way farther than anything remotely reasonable. The end result being to discourage genuine trust and collaboration, rather than to foster it.
Consultant32452 9y ago
Is this happening a lot in the tech world? I don't mean an anecdote here and there. I did some quick google searches and it seems like non-competes are usually enforced against people in sales/marketing of some sort, taking their client list with them. That seems like a completely reasonable enforcement. The instances that make headlines in the tech world are the ones where Uber may have intentionally stolen Google tech, or at least the employee intentionally brought Google tech with them to Uber. Again, completely reasonable.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  Yes. It happens to anyone who doesn't move to California. You can Google for stories on it.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    I didn't move to California and it's never happened to me or anyone I know. I did Google for stories on it and I couldn't find any stats. Do you have any?
    - 9y ago

ScottBurson 9y ago

Compare the economic vibrancy of the Boston metro area (all the way out to Rte. 128) with the San Francisco Bay area (including Silicon Valley). Boston is a major educational hub, with some 250,000 students at a time at many universities and colleges including MIT and Harvard. And yet, the SF Bay area has left Boston in the dust when it comes to startup creation. There's nothing in Boston comparable to Apple, Google, or Facebook. And Boston was once a major hub of the computer industry, with Digital Equipment, Data General, and several smaller manufacturers -- that's all history now. This is pretty strong empirical evidence that although enforceable noncompetes may be better for existing companies, they are a drag on the regional economy. (Taking your current employer's clients is not exactly the same thing -- IANAL, but I would think that would be covered by the trade secret protections.)

Clubber 9y ago
This sort of thing is absolutely, 100% these incumbent companies lobbying their governments to give them a short term economic benefit at the high cost to both employees of that company, employees that work in that local economy, taxpayers in that economy, and the local economy as a whole, and even that company themselves medium term. Who would want to work in Idaho after reading this?