30 ms·

U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

• brohoolio 4y ago
  I’m surprised it’s taken so long. Companies have abused this practice to an absurd degree. Got a job at a sandwich shop? I guess you are prohibited from getting a different job down the street based on the agreement you signed at the beginning of your employment.
  • runevault 4y ago
    I know here in Colorado they recently passed a law that under a certain pay you cannot be made to sign a noncompete. However it was only like $110k so wasn't going to help many developers.
  • JJMcJ 4y ago
    I think the sandwich shop and similar working class non-competes is what finally pushed this into happening.
• TSiege 4y ago
  This is a bigger deal then the title suggests since it appears it would be retroactive and nullify existing non competes > The commission’s proposal appears to address this issue by requiring employers to withdraw existing noncompetes and to inform workers that they no longer apply. The proposal would also make it illegal for an employer to enter into a noncompete with a worker or to try to do so, or to suggest that a worker is bound by a noncompete when he or she is not. This is very unclear to me, and seemingly experts, if the FTC has this power, but it would be very far reaching if it were to go into effect. Given the hostility of the current Supreme Court to federal agencies, the pessimist in me says that this would be challenged by an employer go all the way to the supreme court and be used by them to dramatically limit the power of FTC
  • LanceH 4y ago
    > Given the hostility of the current Supreme Court to federal agencies Maybe it's overreach by federal agencies when they create their own law. There is a distinction between authorizing an agency to figure out how to get something done and letting one make new law. Dramatically limiting the power of agencies to make up their own new laws seems like a good thing.
    • ElevenLathe 4y ago
      It's good to let agencies make laws if they make good laws. It's bad to let agencies make laws if they make bad laws. The liberal obsession with process is what lets the far right make inroads everywhere, since they don't share it.
      • tristor 4y ago
        What is good law and what is bad law? This is subjective, and likely shifts with the context of the surrounding society. Law is not morality, even though it may derive from social mores. For this reason, process is crucially important to prevent tyranny.
        • ElevenLathe 4y ago
          Yes, it's subjective. The ones I like are good. The ones that help my allies are good. The ones that punish my enemies are good. Pretending that things are any other way is madness.
          • notch656c 4y ago
            When the enforcers and courts are corrupted racketeers, even good laws are evil.
            • ElevenLathe 4y ago
              Unless they're corrupt in my favor!
• blueprint 4y ago
  this seems like a really bad idea. people can just join a company, get trained, then leave. hello corporate espionage.
  • aliqot 4y ago
    as opposed to joining a company, get trained, get laid off when the economy dips, forced to be unemployed
    • blueprint 4y ago
      so maybe regulators should introduce nullifying noncompetes with certain cases, not nullifying them in every circumstance. but still, they serve an obvious purpose, even if you are laid off by that company. the idea is you are given confidential info that you are not supposed to use because that's unfair competition. not that you're likely to care
      • chunk_waffle 4y ago
        > the idea is you are given confidential info that you are not supposed to use because that's unfair competition This proposal does not nullify NDAs (Non disclosure agreements), from the FTC press release: "The proposed rule would generally not apply to other types of employment restrictions, like non-disclosure agreements." There are also exceptions to partners and owners selling a business.
  • dchuk 4y ago
    There are still intellectual property laws in place that could protect the original companies. Non-competes stifle innovators at big companies from being able to leave and pursue their own ideas that are in the same domain as the parent company.
    • blueprint 4y ago
      I'm not saying the existing solution is complete, either. But banning noncompetition itself is not the right answer. Why do contract noncompetes clauses exist? What about the small companies and inventors and IP owners? None of these replies I'm seeing have considered the side effects to the world except what would clearly also benefit giant companies.
• simplotek 4y ago
  Noncompete clauses for workers is the most anti-american, anti-free-market policy anyone could pull. If workers aren't free to switch to better jobs and at the same time are left to fend off for themselves them the economic system starts to resemble feudalism.
  • lambdasquirrel 4y ago
    [flagged]
    • anon291 4y ago
      It's already illegal in many states
      • Kalium 4y ago
        CA, ND, OK, and DC seem to be the ones of note. A slew of other states have thresholds under which non-competes are invalid, but above which they are. Washington's, as an example, are here: https://lni.wa.gov/workers-rights/workplace-policies/non-compete-agreements https://lni.wa.gov/workers-rights/workplace-policies/non-com... Those thresholds mean most software engineers are subject to non-competes.
      • ghaff 4y ago
        Aspects of non-competes are not enforceable in some places--and enforcement may require payments to the ex-employee in others (e.g. MA). But some non-compete conditions are generally enforceable even in CA as I understand it (e.g. if you sell a business, you can't set up shop the next street over and contact all your former customers). But they're not illegal as far as I know.
        • anon291 4y ago
          > if you sell a business, you can't set up shop the next street over and contact all your former customers The article as about non-compete for workers. Non-competes for M&As are not mentioned.
• bpodgursky 4y ago
  I agree that noncompetes are bad, but the FTC declaring it without a congressional mandate seems deeply questionable.
  • Arrath 4y ago
    Is such a move not one of the purposes of these agencies staffed by (supposedly) experts and run by appointees? Legislature is so dysfunctional that the House can't elect a speaker at this very moment, and who knows if such a measure would even see the light of day in committee let alone get to the floor if the lobbyists got wind of it. If the lawmakers take issue with the ruling they can issue a mandate to roll it back, no?
    • mschuster91 4y ago
      The problem is, the courts may decide to kill it off before Congress gets out of its gridlock and approve or deny it, as many other regulations have been. Executive decrees or questionably legal actions of government agencies are fundamentally bad - but have become commonplace and a necessity of life since Congress is fundamentally broken. And at the core, the problem is that the US' political system unlike everyone else's system does not enforce that the executive has a parliamentary backing. That provides a lot of perverse incentives that historically were only prevented by a basic code of ethics and conduct - but since the Obama days, open obstructionism has become acceptable and a target in itself in politics.
      • hannasanarion 4y ago
        Courts overturning regulations like that is exceedingly rare. The doctrine of chevron deference means that, in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it is the prerogative of executive agencies to interpret their own mandate as they wish.
        • camgunz 4y ago
          100%, plus the Commerce Clause is super powerful. I wouldn't put it past this Court to take a whack at it, but its powers are broad.
• AdmiralAsshat 4y ago
  Would prefer this came from Congress rather than the FTC, because I can see at least two different ways this could get sunk from the FTC: 1) The process gets stalled from rollout until 2024, at which point a Republican comes into power, appoints new FTC head, and they roll it back. 2) Companies sue, and SCOTUS rules that this exceeds FTC authority. But I'll freely concede that there is no way such a bill would ever make it through Congress.
  • MajimasEyepatch 4y ago
    Such a bill could make it through a Democratic Congress with a large enough Senate majority. Unfortunately we don’t have that right now.
    • Spivak 4y ago
      I have to believe that some, if not most, Republicans would go for a bill like this. A bill that's "freedom-from", costs nothing, is pro-worker while not being pro-labor, you get free talking points for "see you don't need unions."
      • MajimasEyepatch 4y ago
        It constrains the freedom of corporations, which is far more important to the Republican party than freedom of individuals.
• treis 4y ago
  Definitely one of those obviously broken things that should be stopped. Whatever legitimate usage they theoretically have in practice the vast majority do not protect against a bona fide company risk.
• edwnj 4y ago
  [dead]
• ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  I understand noncompetes in some fields... but this can be solved in other ways. In my country (slovenia), a noncopete is valid only if you're being financially compensated by some amount while the noncompete lasts. It's a bit complicated here, but ideally companies wanting noncompetes could be forced to pay the difference between what the worker would've earned if they stayed (+ some safety factor for a potential raise elsewhere, eg 20%) and what they earn now with a noncompete. So if a worker earned 100k, with the safety factor for a raise that means 120k, and can only earn 50k due to a noncompete, the company would have to pay the difference of 70k to that worker if they wanted to keep the noncompete valid (for a limited amount of time). Company keeps their 'secrets', but has to pay for the secrecy.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • weakfortress 4y ago
    I don't understand them in any field. I was forced into signing one for tech that blocks me from working from any competitor for up to 2 years. Depending on how loosely you define competitors that could mean I can't work in tech for 2 years after this job. Unfortunately for me I can't afford a lawyer. Fortunately for me non-competes of this level are generally unenforceable. You have NDAs already. It's not like you're working for Lockheed with secret stealth aircraft knowledge where a non-compete might be a national security protection. It's a representation of the inequality of bargaining power. If I didn't take the job I would've been out another job for possibly months to reach my payscale (Staff). They are a representation of the scourge of the neo-liberal variety of capitalism. It's not true capitalism, it's actually neo-feudalism, and it's not the only symptom of it. You will never get anyone in power to agree to make non-competes force payment of a stipend while you're under one. The powers that be have paid off congress. The fact the FTC even wants to look into this after decades of this abuse just demonstrates that fact further.
    • blueprint 4y ago
      you're not automatically entitled to use or benefit from the IP developed by others and then disclosed to you just because you signed a paper that promises to pay you for work. maybe it makes more sense where your opponent is a horrible but huge company like facebook but this move can kill development of sensitive or novel tech by underfunded entrepreneurs. it is a mistake for the USA. maybe you guys should downvote me more while you ride around in your teslas powered by slave labor batteries.
• ecshafer 4y ago
  Non-Competes being legal is only acceptable I think if the worker will continued being paid for the period of the non-compete. I can see reasons that non-competes exist, but those reasons don't really make sense in a world where patents and trademarks also exist. The fact that they are essentially illegal in California, and California's economy works shows that they are unnecessary and also don't hinder technological development.
  • notch656c 4y ago
    Should be reciprocal if it exists. I.e. if the employee leaves, the company would be barred from hiring anyone else for any remotely similar tasks. Make them taste their own medicine and decide if it's worth it.
    • sieabahlpark 4y ago
      [dead]
    • mywittyname 4y ago
      They'd hire for a different role and "transfer" the person.
      • jakeinspace 4y ago
        This is the perfect use case for anonymous tips receiving a percentage of the fine.
        • heavyset_go 4y ago
          Works well for taxes and other whistleblowers.
      • notch656c 4y ago
        That just sets the precedent the non-compete bound employee can be hired in the same manner. Reciprocal.
    • 4y ago
• chunk_waffle 4y ago
  Press release from the FTC (and no paywall): https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/ftc-proposes-rule-ban-noncompete-clauses-which-hurt-workers-harm-competition https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/...
• lp0_on_fire 4y ago
  I think noncompete clauses have their uses so rather than see them eliminated completely you make a company pay the employee under a noncompete the equivalent salary for the duration. Company wants you to sign a noncompete for five years after you leave? They can pay for you five more years. Companies that truly need the protections will shell out for it. The ones that include it in their employment contracts because that's just what they do, won't.
  • ghaff 4y ago
    Garden leave isn't a panacea. For example, in Massachusetts, there's a relatively recent requirement that employers have to pay at least half of an ex-employee's salary for up to a 12 month non-compete coverage. Better than nothing I guess. And it does put some skin in the game for the employer. But while that might look like a good deal for some people who are in a position to just travel, start a project of some sort, etc. it isn't for everyone. Someone with a mortgage, kids in college, or other financial obligations might not think that dropping to half their base pay--to say nothing of just taking a year off mid-career--is so great. And, depending upon how specialized they are, there may not be a role open to them which is a good match with their experience and skills.
    • lsllc 4y ago
      But in MA, the "reform" doesn't apply to existing employment contracts, only ones signed after it went into effect. The MA law was watered down after some lobbying by large Hopkinton MA based company(s) that had taken A.I.M. at non-compete reform in the state. In fact the reforms that did pass, I think only did after of a certain acquisition that occurred involving said company(s). https://www.telegram.com/story/business/columns/2016/07/10/peter-s-cohan-with-emc-change-will-bay-state-be-free-to-compete-with-silicon-valley/27516604007/ https://www.telegram.com/story/business/columns/2016/07/10/p... https://aimnet.org/non-compete-agreements-protect-innovation/ https://aimnet.org/non-compete-agreements-protect-innovation...
      • ghaff 4y ago
        Yeah. EMC was one of the big blockers. I had to sign upon being acquired in 1999 although it didn't affect me (and was actually reasonably scoped). And I left after a few months.
• eclipsetheworld 4y ago
  In Germany we have non-competes, however, the employer has to continue paying the ex-employee (a part of) their salary for the non-compete to have any effect.
  • edu 4y ago
    Same in Spain.
  • 0xAFFFF 4y ago
    In France a non-compete clause must be attached to financial compensation or it is considered void.
    • 1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
      Imagine that the employer does not have a non-compete in place with her current employees. In the US, she may offer a single, token amount in exchange for signing an agreement containing a non-compete clause. This could, for example, be described by the employer as a "bonus". It does not have to be reasonably-based on the amounts the employee might gain from working for a competitor. It could be much lower. The employer could make signing the agreement a prerequisite to continued employment. Arguably the purpose of such a "bonus" is primarily to protect the employer against challenges to the enforceability of the agreement, not as an incentive or reward to current employees.
      • yardie 4y ago
        You can always turn it down. Contracts have whats called consideration. I've seen companies try to get away with NCA/NDA by tying severance to signing one. I would have to be truly desperate to take the money over the health of my career, yet that is exactly what a lot of companies rely on.
        • 1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
          In the US, I have never seen a severence agreement that did not include confidentiality provisions. However (IMO) the inclusion of non-compete provisions has become more common across all levels of employment and all job categories. The vast majority of US workers will sign these agreements. That cultural trend makes it (a) easier for employers' legal counsel to manage any issues raised by the minority and (b) more difficult, if not impossible, for the minority to negotiate.
• chunk_waffle 4y ago
  Press release from the FTC: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/ftc-proposes-rule-ban-noncompete-clauses-which-hurt-workers-harm-competition https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/...
• kepler1 4y ago
  For some reason I jumped to hoping the title also implied that union-only anti-compete clauses in government contracting were also banned. But that was too optimistic.
• pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Uncompensated non-compete clauses have been pretty much unenforceable anyway given the cost of enforcement and the actual value to the enforcer (usually less than 6 figures). It's a good step to ban these given that all they do is make people afraid to work somewhere else. Compensated non-competes are a totally different story, and probably better to hold on to.
  • thwayunion 4y ago
    This has been my experience. One employer tried. With the help of a labor attorney, I told them that if they wanted to enforce the clause then I would voluntarily withdraw my acceptance of a new job offer and then avail myself of the courts. Burned a bridge, of course, but it took them about 20 minutes to decide I wasn't worth the hassle.
• grumple 4y ago
  This is obviously great for workers and competition. It's actually good for companies too, even if they are too short sighted to realize it. See: silicon valley.
  • thwayunion 4y ago
    What you're missing is that most wealthy decision makers have highly concentrated holdings, so a general raise in national wealth doesn't necessarily provide them with a net benefit. Ending non-competes would be good for GDP growth and the US economy writ large. But it's not necessarily for any particular company. See: all the businesses killed off by silicon valley. Similar to how rent collection is a massive drag on economic productivity but fixing the housing crisis would be terrible for certain rent extractors in particular.
• Zigurd 4y ago
  It's a way of establishing an "intellectual property" claim inside your skull. I put that in quotes because a limited term government grant of monopoly, which is what patents and copyrights actually are, are not "property." There is no property right in that grant of a monopoly. Congress could reset the term of patents and copyrights at any moment, on any terms. That's a much weaker thing than actual property rights.
  • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Congress could reset the term of patents and copyrights at any moment, on any terms. That's not how actual property rights work. Isn’t it?
    • Zigurd 4y ago
      No. A bill setting patent or copyright terms to less than what they are now is constitutional. Some might argue the opposite side of that, but I don't think anyone can deny the Framers were wary of the kinds of monopolies monarchs granted, much less did they think a patent is property.
      • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        My point is all ownership is a legal concept. Congress can abridge many property rights, including real estate, and the only thing keeping them from going further is the custom enshrined in our Constitution.
        • Zigurd 4y ago
          It's more than "custom." Since we have judicial review, courts can strike down an unconstitutional taking of property. It goes back to WWKGD? ("What would King George do?") ...and doing the opposite. So we have constitutional protections against seizing private property, but arbitrary terms, except they must be limited terms, for grants of monopoly. Not perfectly observed of course. The Mouse always stretches the definition of "limited term." But the intent is there for anyone to see.
• tylergetsay 4y ago
  When it comes to startups, arent most noncompetes basically in the form of stock compensation? It would be hard to work for somebody while being invested in a competitor, or am I completely off base?
• egypturnash 4y ago
  GOOD
• vsskanth 4y ago
  This is a big deal if they can pull this off and I'm very impressed with the FTC being proactive and doing something about it. Noncompetes are a huge incentive for companies to prevent employees from being paid their true market value for their skills, especially true for those who are very specialized and only few employers can make use of their skills.
• bickfordb 4y ago
  Hopefully this will spur action to do this for all other contracts of adhesion that consumers, workers often face.
• Eumenes 4y ago
  Lol @ this being an FTC proposal. Whats next, OSHA limiting your speech at work?
  • gameman144 4y ago
    What do you mean there? Maintaining competition in a labor market seems like it's absolutely within the scope of trade regulations.
    • Eumenes 4y ago
      Why are they suddenly making this decision in 2023? Seems like something congress should change.
      • aidenn0 4y ago
        Congress is rapidly becoming a failed institution. They have gradually outsourced their duties to various administrative authorities (such as the FTC) to the point that the only thing they must do to keep the US running is pass the annual budget and raise the debt ceiling. I think any time an administrative authority or, even better, the courts do something that a legislator wants done, they breathe a sigh of relief that they don't need to spend any of their valuable political capital trying to do it themselves. The fact that what someone else does, they can also undo, never seems to play into their calculus. One example: Well after Democrats were established as the pro-choice party, there were periods in which both chambers and the presidency were all controlled by the Democratic party. So obviously, with pro-life activists agitating to get pro-life justices appointed, congress spent nearly zero time passing any pro-choice laws.
        • dragonwriter 4y ago
          > congress spent nearly zero time passing any pro-choice laws. What pro-choice federal law do you imagine would have substantive effect in the face of what would be (and was) necessary for Roe to fall:!a Supreme Court that is (1) so dismissive of well-established precedent as to strike down the cases establishing abortion as a 14th Amendment right (thereby both removing the independent bar to state anti-abortion law and removing the enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment as a basis for federal law), (2) from a faction also opposed to expansive readings of the Commerce Clause (thus rendering abortion protection grounded in the Commerce Clause unviable). This isn’t like same-sex marriage where Congress has a separate, less factionally controversial in bounds, Constitutional grant of power (in the Full Faith and Credit clause) to act under.
• chaoz_ 4y ago
  Would be interesting to see how contracts in HFT are going to change. From what I heard, when some specialists (e.g. hardware folks) are changing jobs, then the firm is likely to lose an "edge" as competitors will have access to similar technology/knowledge. Garden leave helps to mitigate this effect. If non-competes are banned, then TCs are (probably) going to rise even more.
  • affyboi 4y ago
    For quant finance and HFT noncompetes usually pay out pretty generously
    • thwayunion 4y ago
      Interestingly, the FTC rule does not include an exception for garden pay.
      • ghaff 4y ago
        Probably just as well. Garden leave can be a pretty unsatisfactory mitigation, especially if it's not 100% of salary or if a lot of total comp is in bonus or equity. And even money aside, some people may not want to put their career on hold for a year. Essentially garden leave is a compromise that's better than nothing and will make companies think twice about trying to enforce a non-compete. However, non-competes still raise flags for potential employers as well. (I used to work for a very small company and we wouldn't touch anyone who had a non-compete in place.)
  • thwayunion 4y ago
    > when some specialists (e.g. hardware folks) are changing jobs, then the firm is likely to lose an "edge" as competitors will have access to similar technology/knowledge. So without the employee the firm can't compete? If that's really true, then that employee should be able to extract as much blood as they want. They are literally the keystone of the business. The good news is that the FTC rule would allow the firm to enforce a non-compete by giving the employee a 25% equity stake. That seems like a fair trade in exchange for with-holding such incredibly valuable specialized knowledge from the market.
• Ethan_Mick 4y ago
  Good. I've seen over and over this harm friends in frustrating ways. Tech aside, non-competes in other industries are completely insane. My wife is an optometrist and all local shops have draconic noncompetes you are forced to sign. If you leave the shop you can't work within 30 miles (or more!) of that location. I've had friends move entire cities just so they can get out of a terrible work situation. Worse, I've had friends stay in bad situations because their noncomplete would force them to move or drive way too far for work. And since everyone does it, they're resigned to "it's just the way it is" and nobody wants to risk being sued.
  • brightball 4y ago
    IMO the primary concern at an office like that is having access to patient data and then enticing them to go elsewhere. If the person wants to go work elsewhere, totally fine. The concern is trying to take customers or other staff with them. I know somebody that happened to. Company opened a branch office and one of the senior staff rented an office around the corner, took half the staff and patients. Stuck them with multi year lease agreements, after the business already bore the entire startup cost of paying people while building up a patient load, marketing, etc. I understand the opposition to draconian non-competes but there’s a flip side of this to protect an investment that is very valid.
    • Retric 4y ago
      Protecting trade secrets and customer/client lists etc don’t require non competes. What they are generally used for is to limit competition or depress wages both of which are economically harmful.
    • ssharp 4y ago
      There are usually non-solicitation clauses as well that prevent you from actively recruiting former co-workers and clients/customers. That's different than a non-compete.
      • arrosenberg 4y ago
        Which should also be unenforceable. Freedom of association is in the Constitution.
• endisneigh 4y ago
  I disagree with banning noncompetes. The issue IMO isn't noncompetes, it's the fact that an employer doesn't have to pay. The rule should be that they can make you not compete, but you must be compensated monthly at your salary level prior to departure. A non compete without having to pay is having your cake and eating it to so to speak.
  • richbell 4y ago
    > The rule should be that they can make you not compete, but you must be compensated monthly at your salary level prior to departure. > A non compete without having to pay is having your cake and eating it to so to speak. Agreed. Noncompetes and NDAs have become standard boilerplate in job contracts despite being inappropriate in the vast majority of cases. In my opinion, it's an intimidation used by employers against employees: "we don't actually enforce this, unless you do things like leave us a negative review on GlassDoor". Despite being unenforceable where I live, I know several people who have been threatened by their ex-employers. Even if such legal action is frivolous, most people don't have the time or money to spare fight it off, and employers know this. This relates back to the bargening inequality mentioned in another thread.
  • netheril96 4y ago
    I disagree. The law can only mandate salaries during noncompete periods. It cannot mandate bonuses or stock grants, both of which can be significant. And as an employee, I prefer that noncompete has no effect. Even if I were paid during noncompete period, I would be outcompeted by other people who are working rather than being idle. It would set my career back.
    • r00fus 4y ago
      Would you be ok if it was total compensation (averaged over a reasonable period) and not salary?
      • CJefferson 4y ago
        The problem there is people often leave one job for a job which might pay 2x, 5x, or even more. How about if you get another job offer, your original employer has to either "buy you out" of the new job offer, or you allowed to take it?
• projectazorian 4y ago
  Lovely, but seems unlikely to make it past the current iteration of the Supreme Court.
• Robotbeat 4y ago
  Banning noncompetes would be an awesome policy for economic growth and dynamism. It’s pro-freedom in the useful sense of the word. It’s also incredibly pro-worker. Sometimes you get a win-win-win idea.
  • manicennui 4y ago
    Unfortunately the "loser" in this situation is the only group that politicians really care about.
    • r00fus 4y ago
      How did the supposed captured government agency (FTC) happen to even propose this? Is it a) FTC is not captured b) proposal that goes nowhere (ie, Lucy with the football scenario) or c) perhaps that "group politicians really care about" realize the gains may be worth the cost ?
      • wizzwizz4 4y ago
        d) The FTC is not a monolith: it's a large group composed of a great many people, who have varying levels of loyalty to the organisation's purported raison d'être.
      • lostdog 4y ago
        The FTC is a bit less captured currently because of its current head.
        • willcipriano 4y ago
          If this is accomplished I'll believe you.
    • withinboredom 4y ago
      The only loser is the company with the best whatever while all their competitors have a shot at bidding for employees who know the whatever. It tremendously levels the entire playing field.
• cbb330 4y ago
  Government intervention is heavy handed and will cause unintended side affects with 100% certainty. What should happen is for: 1) employees to choose to not join companies with contracts that they don't agree with 2) employers offer better incentive to not leave for roles at risk to poaching e.g. RSUs. A natural market response to bad company policy is always preferred to government mandates.
  • bastawhiz 4y ago
    How is banning your employees from getting jobs with competitors aligned with a free market? That's the opposite of a free market: it prohibits me, the worker, from choosing a company that I want to work for. If I can't get a job with a company I agree with because I'm under a noncompete (perhaps the incentives aren't good enough anymore) then I'm kind of fucked, huh?
  • AlexandrB 4y ago
    > employees to choose to not join companies with contracts that they don't agree with And do what? There's not a robust social safety net in the US, if every company in your industry has a boilerplate non-compete you can't just choose not to sign any of them. > employers offer better incentive to not leave for roles at risk to poaching e.g. RSUs. Why would they do that when they can just put non-competes in their contracts? Or to put it another way, it's extremely hard to quantify how many people didn't sign an employment contract due to a non-compete (and even harder to quantify the value of that potential employee), it's extremely easy to quantify the cost of an RSU program. Which solution do you think an entity optimized for profit maximization will choose most frequently?
  • Daishiman 4y ago
    NDAs are just one axis when considering employment that has no upsides but the downsides are not necessarily bad enough for people who need work to consider them. They’re just not useful and themselves an arbitrary restriction of employment that has no place in a a free market.
  • not_the_fda 4y ago
    Often times you are not informed about non-compete until your first day of work unless you know to explicitly ask about it. They have you over the barrel at that point. I once took a job at a design service company. Asked about any non-competes and invention stuff. Said there wasn't any verbally. I get there and they have this draconian non-compete that you can't work for any other design services, start your own design service, or work for any of their clients for five years.
• mindvirus 4y ago
  It really does seem to me that the simplest solution would be to require non-competes to be paid at the maximum of the past ~N years total earnings (and benefits value), with a minimum of say $100k/year.
• thwayunion 4y ago
  IMO the link should be changed to the FTC's press release, which has no paywall and provides a better summary: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/ftc-proposes-rule-ban-noncompete-clauses-which-hurt-workers-harm-competition https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/... You can read the proposed rule and the full notice and factsheet here: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/federal-register-notices/non-compete-clause-rulemaking https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/federal-register-no... Of note, an FTC commissioner (Trump appointee, so a minority voice in the executive atm) released a dissenting statement outlining the strategy that will be used to defeat the proposed rule: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/p201000noncompetewilsondissent.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/p201000noncompe... (warning: pdf). In her dissent, she speaks eloquently about how darn important noncompetes are to Business and Competition, and "encourage[s] all interested parties to respond fully to all parts of the NPRM’s solicitation of public comments." Which, well... I'll also encourage all interested parties to respond fully to all parts of the NPRM’s solicitation of public comments! You can do so at regulations.gov
  • bcaine 4y ago
    Do you know how to publicly comment? I couldn't find a way on the press release or their website.
    • thwayunion 4y ago
      The notice will be posted on regulations.gov. You can leave a comment there. It's not posted yet. The public comments should open shortly. Set a reminder for Wednesday next week and it'll almost certainly be up on regulations.gov.
    • thwayunion 4y ago
      Hey! Hopefully you go back and read comments on old posts, since the public comment period has begun and comments can now be submitted on regulations.gov: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2023-0007-0001/comment https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2023-0007-0001/comm...
  • 4y ago
• legitster 4y ago
  My understanding is that most non-competes in the US are not enforceable in the first place. So while I think there are situations where non-competes are valid, I think it would be pretty safe to make a rule that says, "if you are not prepared to actually take an employee to court to enforce non-compete, you should be willing to go to court to defend it."
  • kevstev 4y ago
    The problem is that the threat of litigation is enough to make them essentially enforced. Sure you could go to a lawyer that says this isn't worth the paper its printed on, but either you, or maybe your employer, is now going to have to fight this out in court. This is not theoretical. A few years back, my wife, who is in ad sales, had very deep relationships with certain companies. These people had become her friends, we vacationed with them. She took a job at AOL, which at the time held many properties like Engadget, Joystiq- there was a whole host of sites that no one had realized on the surface were owned by them, but they had a decent sized media empire at the time. She had to sign a non-compete saying that she couldn't call on anyone she called on at AOL for a period of 2 years. She joins, and smashes her goal. However, about 3 months in, there was a re-org, she was let go, probably for making too much, and got some paltry severance. She asked to be released from the non-compete. They said no. We lawyered up. He said straight out that he had represented AOL employees before, and they fight these things tooth and nail. He said we would probably win, but it would cost tens of thousands of dollars, and be a cloud over our head for at least the next year or two. He was just being brutally honest with us. We ended up not going that route. It took her several years to recover. She had to take some jobs at kind of shitty companies because no one wanted to touch her with a non-compete like that, and most of her value was in the relationships she brought to the table. AOL essentially got a book of new business for the cost of a few months salary and commission. Its absurd. My last company also tried to put an onerous non-compete on me- they only wanted to pay me my base salary which was a fraction of my total comp. They wouldn't even define who their competitors were. I fought against it hard. I was then labeled "difficult" by HR and what had been a bit of a rocket ship of a ride up there all of a sudden came to a stop- I stayed for another 2 years there, but it became clear there was a glass ceiling above me. Non-competes in any form need to go away. This is restraining the US economy from achieving its potential by reducing labor mobility.
• All4All 4y ago
  I agree with the notion of ridding noncompetes entirely. Former employers should be limited to bringing cases against former employees who actually take something of legal value-i.e. trade secret misappropriation claims which require a higher standard of proof, as opposed to the broad restrictions that noncompetes impose on employees.
• flerchin 4y ago
  We have various "professional services" folks at my fortune 500, essentially staff aug. Some of those folks I'd like to convert, but there's a non-compete. I wonder if that goes away now? (non California)
  • jabroni_salad 4y ago
    Might want to double check the text of the noncompete. I've never worked anywhere that forbade converting. Rather, it was to stop permatemps from hopping vendors when they inevitably found out some of them pay more for the same work, or from offering the client the same services and entering into competition with the vendor.
• kmod 4y ago
  I mostly think this is a good thing, but there are some fields where I feel like employers will have to take other precautions that are not as nice. Most of us here are in tech where "ideas are cheap" is mostly true and commonly thought, but there are other fields (in particular, finance) where single ideas can easily be worth millions of dollars. (Imagine something like "the stock market goes down on Friday the 13th's".) How are employers supposed to let employees know these ideas? If there aren't noncompetes then I suspect employers will limit employees (and their growth) in other ways. At least here in NY firms will pay ex-employees during their non-compete. My understanding though is that they only have to pay the base salary, which is usually a minority of the total compensation (even guaranteed compensation). Would be nice if that were fixed.
  • lucasgonze 4y ago
    I doubt employers just won't hire. That would be self defeating. They'll look to protect their trade secrets in other ways, mainly through aggressive enforcement of non-disclosure agreements.
• drewda 4y ago
  As the saying goes, California is the United States... just 30 years in the future. (Note that often this is a good pattern, but not always!)
  • yardie 4y ago
    If thats true the rest of the US is going to be on fire, have an abundance of homeless, and high speed rail still won't happen.
    • Fargren 4y ago
      Those seem like reasonable predictions.
    • drewda 4y ago
      Perhaps. But the relevant point here is that California has long had state law banning most forms of non-compete clauses in employment contracts. It's considered to be one of the strengths of Silicon Valley and other California industries -- talent can move from established company to established company, or established company to startup.
• xyzelement 4y ago
  Non competes are often necessary in the most interesting jobs. A few years ago I took a job at a hedge fund with a 2 year noncompete. I took a calculated risk doing so. In the 2 years I worked in the fund, I learned a tremendous amount thanks to being exposed to the "secret sauce" which would have been really damaging for me to take to a competitor. After I left the fund, I took the 2 year non-compete (ie: don't work in another fund) to explore other industries, ended up in a FAANG and quite happy. Point being, as an adult I weighed the risk of the non competes vs the opportunity of the role and made a decision. I am not sure how this kind of role would work in a world of no non-competes but I suspect it would be suboptimal for everyone. The bottom line is, a non compete is not something that springs on you. It's something you evaluated in context and chose, as a professional. You don't have to take the job.
  • lotsofpulp 4y ago
    > I am not sure how this kind of role would work in a world of no non-competes but I suspect it would be suboptimal for everyone. In your example, non competes seem to be optimal for the hedge fund investors, but I fail to see how it was optimal for everyone. California has been pumping out quite a stream of “interesting jobs” and interesting businesses in a world of no non competes.
    • xyzelement 4y ago
      //but I fail to see how it was optimal for everyone. It was also optimal for me as the employee because the fund could (a) hire me and (b) structure my role in a way that I could quickly learn and make impact which (c) enabled me to earn what I want. Without the non-compete, the role/hire would not have been possible and would have to be structured in some less optimal way. Like I said, if I didn't think this role was even w the non compete I'd have done something else.
      • dzader 4y ago
        I don't know what the role was but I'm 100% sure that's not true at all. there are 0 roles that would disappear if non competes became illegal. 0
• commandlinefan 4y ago
  [flagged]
• asah 4y ago
  This is a huge deal for improving US competitiveness worldwide, can't wait for the comments period to open. This is won't affect early stage startups much: startups have limited negotiating power and non-competes are a <blink> tag: it's such a bad look, entrepreneurs are quickly pulled aside by advisors, lawyers, etc. This might affect California, which used them (their ban) to compete with other states. It's a soft thing along with sunshine, funding (easier, faster, better terms) and the talent pool (larger, better connected). I've been affected by non-competes all my career and it was part of my decision to move from New York to California - the software industry was simply too volatile to attach yourself to one employer. As I graduated, I had companies recruiting me, it was impossible to pick. Decades years later, I have enough power (and savvy) to cross-out NCAs from contracts along with overly prescriptive SOWs, toothless financial promises, etc. But kids, if you're reading this, the negotiation never ends if you want to get paid and earn a living.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• charcircuit 4y ago
  Would this also block noncompetes that block you from creating a competitor to where you work or prevent double employment at competing companies?
  • OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    If they look to California's noncompete ban as an example, leaving your company to compete with them would be fine, but double-employment could still be restricted (because they can just fire you).
• spamizbad 4y ago
  Happy to see this. Unfortunately, the business community has completely abused these, with companies like Jimmy Johns requiring its minimum-wage employees to sign non-competes. My state sued them over it and won: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jimmyjohns-settlement/jimmy-johns-settles-illinois-lawsuit-over-non-compete-agreements-idUSKBN13W2JA https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jimmyjohns-settlement/jim...
• adventured 4y ago
  This is both something I support (a huge win for labor), and it will accelerate the tech giants shifting work overseas to save money (incomes will rise as labor is able to more freely act to take advantage of opportunity, big tech will have to pay more for the same labor; to offset, they'll attempt to offshore more aggressively).
  • OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    Those "tech giants" already have huge presences in California, where noncompetes are already illegal.
• krupan 4y ago
  When I want to leave a company and look for a new job, I hate non-competes. When I want to stay at a company and a good co-worker quits to go work for a competitor, I love non-competes. When I want to stay at a company and a toxic co-worker quits to go work for a competitor I cheer that a non-compete did not block that move. And yes, I’ve been in this situation and the toxic employee was CEO of the start-up. I’m pretty sure the competing start-up he went to failed because he went there. Smartest move the start-up I was at ever made to let him go there. I think the best solution is for companies to make damn sure that good employees don’t want to leave to work for a competitor, instead of making them sign a non-compete, especially before you really know if they are toxic or not.
• gen220 4y ago
  I think we're all pretty familiar with the arguments against non-competes. Does anybody have a compelling argument for them, as practiced in 2023 in the US? While we're at it, does anybody have a compelling justification for allowing non-poach agreements, too? From my perspective, they both seem like a non-durable benefit to $current_employer at the expense of a compounding opportunity cost to the greater economy (insofar as it hinders an efficient execution of the labor-employer matching process). Curious if anybody has an interesting argument for why this is OK. The only thing that comes to mind is "trade secrets" arguments, but don't we have separate laws for that?
  • snowwrestler 4y ago
    The argument is basically that trade secrets violations are incredibly hard to detect and pursue. You can’t see inside a person’s brain, and (short of industrial espionage) you can’t see inside a competitor either. So a person could come work for you, gain some knowledge of your trade secrets, and then go get a huge offer from a competitor based on that knowledge. In contrast, it is extremely easy to detect a person’s employer. I’m not saying this is a valid or correct argument, I’m saying this is one of the arguments. Another argument (that I know less about) is that there is knowledge that is valuable and proprietary, but does not actually qualify as “trade secrets” under those laws.
    • curiousllama 4y ago
      This is a solid summary. Another, related argument I've heard is that it incentivizes R&D + upskilling. Much of the value is "we now have people who can do X", not X itself. Without noncompetes, it's a better strategy to try to poach your competitor's R&D employees, rather than invest in your own, which very quickly leads to less research + upskilling.
    • idontpost 4y ago
      [dead]
    • wpietri 4y ago
      A reasonable counterargument here is that if the improvements from misusing trade secrets are that hard to detect, then they were perhaps not sufficient to be worth suing over. Especially given that the discovery phase of a lawsuit does indeed let you see inside a competitor.
• monksy 4y ago
  Non-competes do not protect an organization against IP theft or trade sceret dissemination. Those are protected by NDAs, confidentiality agreements, copyrights, patents, etc. If you see someone making a claim that it's to protect company secrets, that is misinformation used to justify NCs. Please inform them otherwise. Non-competes limit where your staff can go to. Without proper compensation for the time period in which they apply for, they're a very one sided (and in some cases illegal [NCs are legal in IL unless they assert an economic hardship]) way to prevent employees leaving. The claims for them is "training cost is expensive and it's to limit staff from training at one company and leaving" (which as we know.. companies generally don't do training in house)
• batmaniam 4y ago
  If businesses think their employees are so valuable that blocking them from working for a competitor is necessary... then how about just giving them incentives to stay? I don't know, maybe a huge bonus, or above-average salary adjustments against the competitor, etc? Or fix the toxic work environment so that they'll actually want to stay? Otherwise too bad, the business created unfavorable conditions for their employees, so workers should have every right to leave and work for anyone else, including competitors. Either employees are that valuable or they're not, can't have your cake and eat it too, Mr. Big Boss.
• schnable 4y ago
  Nice to see the Biden admin continuing the fight for upper middle-class professionals.
• CodeWriter23 4y ago
  Doesn't this diminish the value of a startup, say, if the buyer hands the principals a mountain of cash in a buyout then the principals use that cash to build in the same industry / market the startup they would have if they had all that cash in the first place? Without having the non-compete with the principals, who would even want to buy your startup?
  • TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    I doubt the rule would apply in that case because that isn't a labor contract, it's a contract to sell a business.
  • OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    I don't know if you've noticed, but there's this little state "California" that gets a lot of press in the start-up scene. Non-competes are basically illegal there, and it doesn't seem to have hampered either the start-ups, nor the build up of megacorporations who buy them.
• acd 4y ago
  I suggest we also implement open source peer reviewed employment contracts. Almost always in the end of the recruitment process are you showed the emploment contract fine print. Been through a non complete clause myself I highly recommend against it. Your skill and work experiance is the most valluable asset to a future employer. Non compete clauses prevent you from seeking jobs in a similar field.
• saraton1n 4y ago
  Of course, it was entirely hearsay, but I've always heard that non-competes were unenforceable and primarily a scare tactic. It's yet to impact me tangibly, and I understand the need to protect IP, but I don't think non-competes are the way to go about it. I believe this is the right move!
• nscalf 4y ago
  My understanding was that this was one of the big competitive advantages for California. I could be totally off, but wasn’t a reason to work in California that you’re not getting stuck with hostile noncompetes?
• neycoda 4y ago
  Wow, that's a big deal. While NCCs I've signed have generally looked fair, I've seen a few lives destroyed by them. When somebody has expertise in a career in a certain field, and leaves a company, they shouldn't be punished for continuing on with their expertise in another company, even their own. This is called competition. It shouldn't be stifled. Stealing trade secrets is one thing, but competing in a field should be regulated by companies that don't wanna compete.
• rajeshp1986 4y ago
  Does anyone know if this would retro-actively applied to employees who signed the non-compete contracts?
  • lsllc 4y ago
    Yes, from the FTC press release [0]: The proposed rule would apply to independent contractors and anyone who works for an employer, whether paid or unpaid. It would also require employers to rescind existing noncompetes and actively inform workers that they are no longer in effect. [0] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/ftc-proposes-rule-ban-noncompete-clauses-which-hurt-workers-harm-competition https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/...
• EchoReflection 4y ago
  Depaywalled snapshot: https://archive.vn/nLiSq https://archive.vn/nLiSq
• cashsterling 4y ago
  Whether or not this goes through, I think a lot of folks on HN should consider refusing to sign non-compete agreements... especially if you are a subject matter expert in your field of work. If a employer wants you to sign a non-compete it should cost them something (extra salary, extra signing bonus, pay for a period of time after you leave the company, etc.). You shouldn't just give away your right to work for nothing. I stopped signing non-competes a number of years ago on the basis that I'm hired for my expertise and know-how and, as such, "I bring everything to table" in my domain of expertise (not my company or they wouldn't have needed me)... it is my experience,knowledge and capability and I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with it, with the exception of stuff specifically covered by trade secret protections, classification, etc.
• Nomentatus 4y ago
  It's interesting to consider Marx's viewpoint here, namely that businesses are always, even during good times, in a rigorous exploitation contest for the right to stay in business; and so only the businesses that use every possible means of exploiting their workers to the max, and thus piling up the biggest heap of surplus value as liquid assets; will be able to draw on pile that long enough to survive severe economic downturns (thus selecting for max exploitation over the longer run.) (Really a dollar auction, not that he used that phrase.) This seems esp poignant, and accurate, re low-wage and low-skill workers having to sign non-compete clauses. (Downturns were both more frequent and more severe in Marx's day.) However I think Marx would be confounded by the Justice Department fully pushing this initiative, if indeed it does; since he believed the elites had an iron grip on democracies that was not going to be shaken. He would have predicted a far higher GINI than the (kinda high) one we have. More like Russia's, at least. I may be selling him short though, he might view the Justice Dept action as mostly theatre; allowing other forms of exploitation to proceed apace and only addressing abusive clauses that weren't being enforced anyway; and the expansion of skilled and better-paid work in our day as only an apparent exception to his views.
• cmurf 4y ago
  One of the FAANGs tried to get me, as an independent contractor, to sign a non-compete that exactly described my business. And they wanted a multi-million dollar indemnification for work that amounted to 2+2=4. As in, no one owns the work result, it's a discovery of facts about how the world works. At first they suggested I needed to sign the agreement before they'd pay my invoice, but then quickly paid it and nixed further work planned. I was not going to sign something so blatantly lopsided. Not everyone is in a position to do that though.
• boppo1 4y ago
  I recently had to deal with some onerous IP clauses that were essentially a non-compete. Fortunately they agreed to drop it. But for the future: Any advice on finding a good IP lawyer who knows software/media? Lots of IP lawyers around here happy to charge me $300/hr, not so many I'm confident understand the creation of videogame code & assets.
• steelframe 4y ago
  When I was interviewing last year, I cut off an interview loop with a company primarily because I don't reside in California and their NDA was, "Anything you say, anything we say, forever." Since I was also interviewing with one of their direct competitors that I really preferred, I didn't want to put myself anywhere near a legal situation where they might try to mess things up for my career. They freaked out when I told them I didn't want to complete the interview loop because apparently I had passed their initial "weeder" interview and they were getting really excited about the possibility of me joining. But I would have had to sign that "everything, forever" NDA to keep going, and they weren't willing to go back to legal or do anything to change it, so that was that. I personally know several people in my state who had their careers impacted due to threats from former employers over an NDA, so I really don't feel like that was an overreaction on my end. And I'm super-happy where I ended up. I just wanted to provide a data point on how NDAs that go overboard ("everything, forever") can cut both ways.
  • mcv 4y ago
    Contracts that restrict you, whether non-compete, NDA or otherwise, should be as narrow as possible and limited to a reasonable time. Overly broad restrictions are stupid, dangerous, and unnecessary. I had quite a bit of discussion about this for my current project. It had two non-competes; one for the client and one for the intermediary, and the important one, the one by the client, sounded very broad and vague, and I wanted explicit and in writing how broad they meant it. (Turned out to be only about a handful of their direct competitors.)
  • nerpderp82 4y ago
    It is legally lazy of them to throw that in there and good for you to stand your ground. Make them sleep in the bed they make!
  • encryptluks2 4y ago
    Smart choice. If they are trying to get you to sign an NDA before even being offered a job then they better be offering some kind of amazing package. I've seen recruiter companies try to do the same just to interview.
• neonate 4y ago
  https://archive.ph/PWeyx https://archive.ph/PWeyx
• dang 4y ago
  Recent and related: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34254183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34254183 - Jan 2023 (165 comments)
• tchock23 4y ago
  [Put this in another thread but adding it here since I didn't realize it was a duplicate thread] My Dad was forced to retire early as a network engineer after the small (5 person) RSA consulting shop he was working for actively threatened his livelihood with a non-compete. No one in the industry would touch him because of how aggressively and proactively the owner of the shop was defending the non-compete. I offered my financial resources and network to help him fight it, but he was nearing the end of his career and just didn't have the energy to fight. He now delivers dry cleaning at $15/hr just to get out of the house. Non-competes can't die fast enough.
• worik 4y ago
  Part of the problem, IMO, is the idea that rules can take the place of integrity. Rules are useful. But they are useful for "other people". We all act with integrity because we are decent people, not because we will be punished if we do not
• solomatov 4y ago
  If anyone wants to read the rule as written by FTC, could do it here: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/federal-register-notices/non-compete-clause-rulemaking https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/federal-register-no...
• asdff 4y ago
  Noncompetes are a classic example of employers abusing their position and their ability to lobby for laws such as these in the first place, to benefit their bottom line at the expense of their employees. If you had some sensitive information that an employee knows about and you are worried about losing them, why not just pay them more to stay on then, versus making them absolutely unmarketable in the workplace because all their relevant skills and experiences are illegal to be used again? What are you even expected to do in that case then? Get a job at McDonalds until the noncompete expires and you can actually send your resume out gain?
• Communitivity 4y ago
  I had a company that had a very vague noncompete. As worded it could be 'Anything, everywhere'. I asked about it and was told 'Yeah,but we never enforce that.' I wanted to work for the company, but that was a full stop. I hired a lawyer a friend recommended. He went over it and confirmed I should be concerned if I did anything outside of work that could create IP that I might want to sell later. He drafted some new language that confined the noncompete for me to industry and specific region for 1 year only, that everything I working on outside of work and on my own resources outside of that industry was mine, as well as some set-asides that clearly noted work I had been working on before coming on and we're my own work. It cost me a little under $1k If you are going for a job that pays $100k or more, get a lawyer (ideally a lawyer in your sector) to look over your employment contract, NDA, Non-compete, etc. It is worth every penny, in my opinion.
• Communitivity 4y ago
  Noncompetes in any form should be illegal, in my opinion. They are a form of intellectual slavery - saying the company owns my mind and my mental work products.
• fleddr 4y ago
  For those wondering how this relates to hairstylists... People are not a customer of "Awesome Hair Inc". They are a customer of Laura, whom happens to work for said company. Because Laura knows exactly how to do my hair properly. So when Laura switches company or becomes an independent, her customers follow her. Awesome Hair Inc just lost half their regular customers. A source of perpetual drama. Now you know why hairstylists are so excellent at bonding with people. It's how you create forever customers. An interesting variation of this dynamic is found at the very publication of the article: NYT. Some of their journalists have become very savvy on social media, building up an enormous personal following. A following that is loyal to the person, not specifically to NYT. Yet it was NYT that paid for it, as these journalists tweet on the job, as part of their job. At the very least, NYT could hope that this sends a lot of clicks towards their articles, but even that is questionable as increasingly these journalists tweet screenshots of key sections, knowing that nobody on social media actually reads anything. An awkward marriage, to say the least.
  • djur 4y ago
    News outlets already have social media policies (often inconsistently enforced, but they exist). If they were really worried about their employees using their good names to kickstart their Substack they could do something about it. In reality, NYT and others actively seek out writers who get a lot of engagement on social media.
• svillar 4y ago
  Does that mean engineers working at FAANG no longer will be subject to noncompetes? Amazon is known for enforcing non competes on employees (especially AWS employees) who leave to join the competition. Their CTO has been vocal about this on Twitter and a quick Google search will reveal a lot more details. What about job offers that require employees do waive away some rights and agree to arbitration as the only avenue to resolve a labor/employment dispute?
• mustafabisic1 4y ago
  Michael Scott likes this :S How the turntables ...
• winrid 4y ago
  The interesting thing about this is that companies may treat their employees a little bit better if they know they can immediately go to a competitor.
• dathinab 4y ago
  I think noncompoetes should be bound on income as in: - illegal if your income isn't majorly above the average (like 50+% above) - in situation where legal bound in maximal time by a combination of how much your income is above average and how long you worked for the company before you stopped doing so - in no situation should it be longer then 1 year - in no situation should it be longer then half the time you worked for a company
• mnming 4y ago
  Fully supportive to this move! However, I am worried if this will change the typical "all source code available to all employees" situation to limited read access to everyone.
• sbaiddn 4y ago
  Im ok with noncompetes. However, if my would be ex-employer wants to block me from joining a competitor then he has to pay me 150% of the salary that the competitor would have paid me for the duration of the non compete while I twiddle my thumbs. Fair is fair
• jjtheblunt 4y ago
  the cynic in me wonders if this, now, is a planned diversion from the seeming universal outrage at SBF being out on bail, with widely documented vanished stolen investor money having been given to politicians (of both parties).