4 ms·

>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 com

>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.
danssig 15y ago
>there is obviously an element of competition here As there should be. Do you not like free markets? >her regular clients may follow her Good. Her value is not "doing hair" it's attracting clients (i.e. you can be very good at doing hair but have a personality that makes no one want to deal with you). That's what defines her market value that she's selling every day. If she finds a customer (i.e. company) willing to pay her a better rate for the value she provides (i.e. clients) then the rational thing for her to do is move her offering to that customer (i.e. company). >the non-compete should be specific and fair The existence of a non-compete is unfair. They only exist because of the power deficit between companies and workers.

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.

danssig 15y ago

>there is obviously an element of competition here As there should be. Do you not like free markets? >her regular clients may follow her Good. Her value is not "doing hair" it's attracting clients (i.e. you can be very good at doing hair but have a personality that makes no one want to deal with you). That's what defines her market value that she's selling every day. If she finds a customer (i.e. company) willing to pay her a better rate for the value she provides (i.e. clients) then the rational thing for her to do is move her offering to that customer (i.e. company). >the non-compete should be specific and fair The existence of a non-compete is unfair. They only exist because of the power deficit between companies and workers.