5 ms·
I agree that they are unfair, though that alone won't get them eliminated. Part of the problem is that there is a huge imbalance of power between a low-level e
by geebee 15y ago
I agree that they are unfair, though that alone won't get them eliminated. Part of the problem is that there is a huge imbalance of power between a low-level employee and a corporation. I guess many programmers are talented enough to say no to jobs, but a lot of people have to work for a while and endure many months of unemployment to land that first job. Once they do, they'll be hesitant to do something that might jeopardize it.
I suppose some people might say "so be it" - after all, we don't normally intervene. Two weeks of vacation with a forced closure over the summer and winter that eats it all up might seem unfair as well, but we (at least in the US) don't typically look to the gov't to force companies to act differently (though obviously we do set some standards, just not to the same extent you might see in Europe).
Even so, I think that non-competes are a terrible idea, mainly because they damage the economy and do harm everyone. They're also different from many other contracts in that they have a powerful effect on people who were not a party to the original contract. The employee may have signed an agreement not to work for anyone else, but the new company certainly never signed an agreement not to hire that worker!
The main reason I can see for enforcing these non-competes is the notion that companies will increase hiring and invest more in training unexperienced workers by providing reassurance to the employer that the person will not immediately take the skills straight over to a different company. I wonder how big a problem this really is. Even if it's a problem, is it a bigger problem than what we have here? This woman is now on unemployment insurance rather than creating wealth through employment and contributing to the tax base. As you can probably tell, I doubt this has much effect. I don't think that software patents cause much innovation that would not have otherwise occurred, but I do think they stifle innovation. I don't think that non-competes cause much hiring that would not have otherwise occurred, but I do think that they stifle hiring.
Interesting that the journalist here expressed surprise that the owner of the business enforcing the non-compete is actually opposed to them in principle. I don't think people in software are surprised. There are all kinds of things, from non-competes to patents, that we don't like but engage in anyway (to refrain on principle seems, to many people, like "unilateral disarmament" in a war zone).
- nobody314159 15y agoThey are reasonable in some cases. Take a consultancy for example - I'm paying the consultancy firm 5-10x as much per day for you as an employee. So I offer to hire you at 2x your salary and still save a fortune. No consultancy could ever let their staff near a customer.
- achille 15y agoHere in California, non-competes are not enforceable, and I think it's empowered employees. I don't see employers complaining. I see them colluding with each other See: http://boingboing.net/2008/08/08/california-supreme-c-1.html http://boingboing.net/2008/08/08/california-supreme-c-1.html
- VladRussian 15y ago>I agree that they are unfair, i think it depends. The hairdresser in the article may have moved to the salon next block - there is obviously an element of competition here, her regular clients may follow her, etc... - it seems valid for me to enforce non-compete in such a case. On the other side if her new job is sufficiently distant from the old one that no actual competition between businesses exists - then no-compete is satisfied by the virtue of the absent competition. The same in the software - my previous non-compete was clear and very specific about same clients (existing or engaged in some degree), products, etc... and while my new employer does have similarly looking product - they are in different market segments, and i made sure to have nothing to do with this product (to avoid any violations of confidential agreement as well). Like any good contract, the non-compete should be specific and fair - this also in the interests of the old employer as enforcing a specific and fair agreement in case of clear violation is much easier than vague "i never be a programmer again"
- jimbokun 15y ago"The hairdresser in the article may have moved to the salon next block - there is obviously an element of competition here, her regular clients may follow her, etc... - it seems valid for me to enforce non-compete in such a case." Why are you against competition?
- VladRussian 15y ago>Why are you against competition? you made a very far reaching conclusion. Taking your clients (that old employer invested in bringing in) is obviously unfair competition. I feel ok toward enforcing non-competes where otherwise would be situation of unfair competition.
- danssig 15y ago>Taking your clients (that old employer invested in bringing in) is obviously unfair competition. No it isn't, it's normal practice. In a customer facing profession you are the product being sold. If you have a developed a big client base from your skill I see no problem with you taking them with you [1]. If the company wants to keep you then they have relatively easy means of doing so. If some other place is willing to offer you a larger percentage on the value you're creating then you should be able to take it. The company loses for not paying you your market price. As it should be. [1] Do you realize that this is common practice in various industries? This is also how a lot of consultancies and other kinds of businesses (even hedge funds!) get started. It's bad enough that if I make something that nets the company 1 million annually I will never see any of that.
- rmc 15y agoReminds me of a quote I saw recently: "what if we train our workers and they leave?" "what if we don't and they don't?"