4 ms·

It's ironic seeing so many people in this thread being against non-competes, yet seeing so few people for unionizing in other HN threads.

jedberg 6y ago
That's a pretty standard libertarian viewpoint: Non-competes limit the contracts that I can make. vs Unions limit the contracts that I can make.
- jefftk 6y ago
  Prohibiting non-competes means you can't make a contract with a non-compete provision. Allowing non-competes is less of a restriction on people's freedom to contract. (Personally I think prohibiting non-competes makes employment work better in practice)
  - jedberg 6y ago
    Yeah but people don't care about limiting their employer's ability to make contracts. Only their own.
    - Thorrez 6y ago
      But by being able to give your employer more (the non-compete), you might be able to negotiate more in return. Removing the ability for you to sign a non-compete might limit your benefit.
marcinzm 6y ago
The perception seems to be that unions hurt well performing employees more than they help. Non-competes are perceived as hurting well performing employees. Why is it surprising that the same group, which perceives itself as well performing employees, would oppose both?
- gxon 6y ago
  It's interesting how many successful, creative people seem to be incapable at imagining themselves not being so successful one day. What you perform well at today won't necessarily be valuable in the future.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    Most people don't find it reasonable to sabotage yourself based on the belief that things could be and probably will be worse some day. If some people do, then they inherently tend to get marginalized. My dad was an engineer who I was told tried to organize a vote to form a union at GE pre-Jack Welch. It failed, but was close. Probably over 30 years after he died it occurred to me that might have something to do with why he retired early. I always figured any company that has a union deserves it - but that doesn't mean I want to be a part of a company where management and labor has that bad of a relationship. Now I belong to a public sector union - and everybody hates those - so I tend to take a nuanced perspective, but there are some mundane drawbacks. For instance, before covid, work-from-home was pretty restricted, and because the exact amount and rules were in the contract, it wasn't easy to change.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    So you're advocating for a union that pays a premium for those employees who have seniority but whose skills are no longer in much demand? At the cost of salary for those whose skills have remained in demand or who have kept up to date with trends? After all, otherwise what advantage does a a union have in your scenario? I doubt many well performing SEs would be happy to have coworkers like that in the future. The ones worried about future marketability have many options including saving a lager percentage of income, investing money in passive income sources, moving into management, etc.
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  It really depends on which unions you look at. When people hear "union," they think of Teamsters and autoworkers and elementary school teachers. But Steven Spielberg, Tom Cruise, Lebron James, and Tom Brady are all examples of union members too.
SomewhatLikely 6y ago
Non-compete bans don't give over some of my negotiating power to my peers.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  Cooperative bargaining is a positive-sum game. If you and I work together to negotiate a contract, we can get better terms than either of us could get individually.
  - mjburgess 6y ago
    This seems to presume that the members of this group have common interests to negotiate on (they dont) and to ignore group psychology. If I have high individual negotiating power and I want to, say, work from home then I do not benefit from unionizing with a majority of people with low-power who do not want to work from home. it's quite plausible that the minimum common interests the group has are already satisfied by the employment terms, and then, the negotiation is an opportunity for "union reps" to game the system to the advantage of some over others. You iterate this over a large number of negotiations, thrown in "union" as now a group and not a mere negotiating block, and you get the police union.
  - barry-cotter 6y ago
    The first sentence is true. The second sentence can be true but often isn’t. If 90% of the workers at a firm are worth $50,000 a year and 10% are worth $200,000 a year a union will represent the average worker, screwing the top 10%. The closer you are to the average of the members in your union the better they represent your interests. If you are far from a representative member the degree to which they will fight for your interests is markedly less.
    - wegs 6y ago
      That's assuming the union represents the workers. In practice, many represent the union bosses, politically-savvy union members, and otherwise. The political cesspools can hurt everyone. They don't have to hurt everyone -- there are definite good unions -- but there are bad ones too. Example: Look at the police unions now.
jcims 6y ago
What does one have to do with the other? And to save time in the event it goes this direction, why would a union prioritize non-competes in their contract (re)negotiation with the employer? Are there examples of industries that commonly have non-competes where unions have successfully eliminated them?
cwp 6y ago
Both non-competes and unions prevent competition in the labour market. Being against both is completely reasonable.

jedberg 6y ago

That's a pretty standard libertarian viewpoint: Non-competes limit the contracts that I can make. vs Unions limit the contracts that I can make.

jefftk 6y ago
Prohibiting non-competes means you can't make a contract with a non-compete provision. Allowing non-competes is less of a restriction on people's freedom to contract. (Personally I think prohibiting non-competes makes employment work better in practice)
- jedberg 6y ago
  Yeah but people don't care about limiting their employer's ability to make contracts. Only their own.
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    But by being able to give your employer more (the non-compete), you might be able to negotiate more in return. Removing the ability for you to sign a non-compete might limit your benefit.

marcinzm 6y ago

The perception seems to be that unions hurt well performing employees more than they help. Non-competes are perceived as hurting well performing employees. Why is it surprising that the same group, which perceives itself as well performing employees, would oppose both?

gxon 6y ago
It's interesting how many successful, creative people seem to be incapable at imagining themselves not being so successful one day. What you perform well at today won't necessarily be valuable in the future.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  Most people don't find it reasonable to sabotage yourself based on the belief that things could be and probably will be worse some day. If some people do, then they inherently tend to get marginalized. My dad was an engineer who I was told tried to organize a vote to form a union at GE pre-Jack Welch. It failed, but was close. Probably over 30 years after he died it occurred to me that might have something to do with why he retired early. I always figured any company that has a union deserves it - but that doesn't mean I want to be a part of a company where management and labor has that bad of a relationship. Now I belong to a public sector union - and everybody hates those - so I tend to take a nuanced perspective, but there are some mundane drawbacks. For instance, before covid, work-from-home was pretty restricted, and because the exact amount and rules were in the contract, it wasn't easy to change.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  So you're advocating for a union that pays a premium for those employees who have seniority but whose skills are no longer in much demand? At the cost of salary for those whose skills have remained in demand or who have kept up to date with trends? After all, otherwise what advantage does a a union have in your scenario? I doubt many well performing SEs would be happy to have coworkers like that in the future. The ones worried about future marketability have many options including saving a lager percentage of income, investing money in passive income sources, moving into management, etc.
snowwrestler 6y ago
It really depends on which unions you look at. When people hear "union," they think of Teamsters and autoworkers and elementary school teachers. But Steven Spielberg, Tom Cruise, Lebron James, and Tom Brady are all examples of union members too.

SomewhatLikely 6y ago

Non-compete bans don't give over some of my negotiating power to my peers.

MereInterest 6y ago
Cooperative bargaining is a positive-sum game. If you and I work together to negotiate a contract, we can get better terms than either of us could get individually.
- mjburgess 6y ago
  This seems to presume that the members of this group have common interests to negotiate on (they dont) and to ignore group psychology. If I have high individual negotiating power and I want to, say, work from home then I do not benefit from unionizing with a majority of people with low-power who do not want to work from home. it's quite plausible that the minimum common interests the group has are already satisfied by the employment terms, and then, the negotiation is an opportunity for "union reps" to game the system to the advantage of some over others. You iterate this over a large number of negotiations, thrown in "union" as now a group and not a mere negotiating block, and you get the police union.
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  The first sentence is true. The second sentence can be true but often isn’t. If 90% of the workers at a firm are worth $50,000 a year and 10% are worth $200,000 a year a union will represent the average worker, screwing the top 10%. The closer you are to the average of the members in your union the better they represent your interests. If you are far from a representative member the degree to which they will fight for your interests is markedly less.
  - wegs 6y ago
    That's assuming the union represents the workers. In practice, many represent the union bosses, politically-savvy union members, and otherwise. The political cesspools can hurt everyone. They don't have to hurt everyone -- there are definite good unions -- but there are bad ones too. Example: Look at the police unions now.

jcims 6y ago

What does one have to do with the other? And to save time in the event it goes this direction, why would a union prioritize non-competes in their contract (re)negotiation with the employer? Are there examples of industries that commonly have non-competes where unions have successfully eliminated them?

cwp 6y ago

Both non-competes and unions prevent competition in the labour market. Being against both is completely reasonable.