4 ms·

> Are there any groups working on getting national/federal regulations changed to invalidate or ban non-compete agreements? I don't know if there are, but the

> Are there any groups working on getting national/federal regulations changed to invalidate or ban non-compete agreements? I don't know if there are, but the idea seems like a complete non-starter in the USA. I don't see any reason to forbid two willing parties from entering into an agreement that includes a non-compete provision. I can maybe see some rationale for restrictions in standard employment situations. But for contract work? If you don't like the terms, don't accept.

ryandrake 8y ago
The line should be drawn at non-negotiable “take it or leave it” clauses that benefit only one party. This is not an agreement made on equal footing, it’s an ultimatum.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"I don't see any reason to forbid two willing parties from entering into an agreement that includes a non-compete provision." Because they're inherently abusive, and there's absolutely nothing in it for the employee? I mean, when you have a sandwich shop pushing non-competes on their employees, then you know they are fucking nuts.
extrapickles 8y ago
I think the only thing that will happen in the US is setting some minimum standard for what the employer must pay you during the non-compete period. Right now the employer can claim that your severance pay is your consideration for the noncompete period. Basically, if the non-compete clause actually cost them something, you would only see it in cases where it mattered.
- gaius 8y ago
  Right now the employer can claim that your severance pay is your consideration for the noncompete period. In cases of layoffs (vs resignation) where severance would be due non-competes are almost always voided. You would only see it if the severance package were substantial.
kanelbullar 8y ago
two willing parties Please, this is a very old topic. The way society is currently configured, at some point, for all practical purposes, you are effectively forced to take some kind of job. Or see your life turn into living hell in a whole bunch of ways. Which means that the idea that both parties are truly "willing" parties (let alone have more or less equal leverage in) the negotiation, at the very least -- needs to be radically revisited. But for contract work? If you don't like the terms, don't accept. "And don't pay the rent, and don't feed your kids" you mean.
- djsumdog 8y ago
  The Mic Dicta podcast has a great commentary about this in one of their recent episodes about a labour dispute; they referred to a judge (can't remember if it was SCOTUS or a Federal court) and said, "He's never had a real job in his life." Work contracts are not a negotiation. There is no back and fourth to an agreement. I've gotten non-competes removed from some contracts, but I'm an exception because 1) I'm in IT and highly skilled and 2) I actually read my contracts. And even then, in two cases they wouldn't change anything about the contracts and I had to walk from those jobs. Anyone who doesn't work in tech or another high income job does NOT have that option. Work contracts in western countries are rarely ever between equal parities.
lozenge 8y ago
Let me guess - you also don't see any reason for minimum wage, minimum health insurance, minimum breaks, minimum maternity leave, or a reason to prevent people from being paid in company scrip. If you do see the reason for any of those things, then surely you can see it's just a question of where the line is best drawn to create a just society.

ryandrake 8y ago

The line should be drawn at non-negotiable “take it or leave it” clauses that benefit only one party. This is not an agreement made on equal footing, it’s an ultimatum.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"I don't see any reason to forbid two willing parties from entering into an agreement that includes a non-compete provision." Because they're inherently abusive, and there's absolutely nothing in it for the employee? I mean, when you have a sandwich shop pushing non-competes on their employees, then you know they are fucking nuts.

extrapickles 8y ago

I think the only thing that will happen in the US is setting some minimum standard for what the employer must pay you during the non-compete period. Right now the employer can claim that your severance pay is your consideration for the noncompete period. Basically, if the non-compete clause actually cost them something, you would only see it in cases where it mattered.

gaius 8y ago
Right now the employer can claim that your severance pay is your consideration for the noncompete period. In cases of layoffs (vs resignation) where severance would be due non-competes are almost always voided. You would only see it if the severance package were substantial.

kanelbullar 8y ago

two willing parties Please, this is a very old topic. The way society is currently configured, at some point, for all practical purposes, you are effectively forced to take some kind of job. Or see your life turn into living hell in a whole bunch of ways. Which means that the idea that both parties are truly "willing" parties (let alone have more or less equal leverage in) the negotiation, at the very least -- needs to be radically revisited. But for contract work? If you don't like the terms, don't accept. "And don't pay the rent, and don't feed your kids" you mean.

djsumdog 8y ago
The Mic Dicta podcast has a great commentary about this in one of their recent episodes about a labour dispute; they referred to a judge (can't remember if it was SCOTUS or a Federal court) and said, "He's never had a real job in his life." Work contracts are not a negotiation. There is no back and fourth to an agreement. I've gotten non-competes removed from some contracts, but I'm an exception because 1) I'm in IT and highly skilled and 2) I actually read my contracts. And even then, in two cases they wouldn't change anything about the contracts and I had to walk from those jobs. Anyone who doesn't work in tech or another high income job does NOT have that option. Work contracts in western countries are rarely ever between equal parities.

lozenge 8y ago

Let me guess - you also don't see any reason for minimum wage, minimum health insurance, minimum breaks, minimum maternity leave, or a reason to prevent people from being paid in company scrip. If you do see the reason for any of those things, then surely you can see it's just a question of where the line is best drawn to create a just society.