6 ms·

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

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.
      - ghaff 4y ago
        The FTC is specifically proposing a carve-out for selling a business. So it is mentioned. The parent made a blanket statement about non-compete legality.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throwayyy479087 4y ago
  The state where all the oligarchs live - NY - doesn't explicitly ban them but treats them as a joke in court.
zozbot234 4y ago
Yes, it's always been an obvious anti-trust concern. Contracts in restraint of trade should not be enforceable.
donatj 4y ago
> anti-free-market policy I go back and forth on that. It seems like the free market ideal would be to allow them and if people didn't like them they wouldn't sign them. No one telling anyone what to do. It certainly hasn't panned out that way though.
- bern4444 4y ago
  No, individuals have far less market power than institutions and businesses. Especially since health care is tied to employment. It's a privileged position if you can 'just say no' to a company that has non compete clauses - the majority of workers cannot.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power The idea is well known for hundreds of years, but here's a particularly salient quote for your line of thinking. ---- "In so far as the reduction of costs of production and distribution thus achieved is reflected in reduced prices, society as a whole ultimately benefits from the use of standard contracts… The use of contracts has, however, another aspect which has become increasingly important. Standard contracts are typically used by enterprises with strong bargaining power. The weaker party, in need of the goods or services, is frequently not in a position to shop around for better terms, either because the author of the standard contract has a monopoly (natural or artificial) or because all competitors use the same clauses. His contractual intention is but a subjection more or less voluntary to terms dictated by the stronger party, terms whose consequences are often understood only in a vague way, if at all." F Kessler, ‘Contracts of Adhesion--Some thoughts about Freedom of Contract’
  - bumby 4y ago
    Workers have mechanisms to balance that power. E.g., forming a union, which could ensure the contract is more fair. I don't know what to make of the fact that they don't use them. In your opinion, is there a reason why something like a union couldn't be used to negate or modify non-compete clauses?
giantg2 4y ago
There are many things that still resemble feudalism. Per capita tax, property tax, conservation easements on deeds, zoning, etc. I'm not saying these things are necessarily good or bad. Just saying that most laws around income, taxes, and land have their roots in feudalism. And of course the ruling class still make themselves well to do off of the hard work of their subjects, just not to the same degree as kings. And yes, I know, people today have "choices" via voting. Even if those choices are between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich without the bread.
- simplotek 4y ago
  > There are many things that still resemble feudalism. Per capita tax, property tax, conservation easements on deeds, zoning, etc. Nonsense. Contributing back to society doesn't even register as a concern when your employer can force you to not have any alternative to work for him under his term, and apply harsh penalties to you and your loved ones if you step out of line. These nonsensical anarchist tropes only come in play to pull the focus away from the one-sided social arrangement between employers and employees in the US which his highly exploitative and outright resembles feudalism.
  - seneca 4y ago
    Your reply is nonsense much more than the one you're replying to. Voluntarily entering a contract with bad terms has a lot less in common with feudalism than heavy handed government does. It's fine that you prefer the authoritarian government, but it doesn't change what feudalism was.
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
      "Voluntarily" is doing a lot of work there. There is a huge power imbalance between employers and unemployed people looking for a job, especially as they may face bankruptcy and homelessness if they go too long without income.
      - giantg2 4y ago
alistairSH 4y ago
...the most anti-american... I dunno, they seem pretty spot on for the US. In the US, "free market" generally means one of two things... 1 - a fictional market with no externalities and perfect information symmetry. Ayn Rand fans think it's real, but it only exists in an ECON-101 textbook. 2 - code for "rules for thee, not for me" as said by the billionaire class. Or, really anything that keeps them rich and the rest of us beholden to them for basic life necessities. Edit - I prefer a phrase like "functioning market" to "free markets". Or maybe "fair market"? Not sure. The current labor market in the US is dysfunctional, at least when considering the share of increased productivity seen by the working classes (vs business owners). Edit2 - changed "perfect information asymmetry" to "perfect information symmetry"
- Pet_Ant 4y ago
  > perfect information symmetry FTFY. I believe that is what you meant to see or > perfect, no information asymmetry
- ballenf 4y ago
  Basically agree, but what we're increasingly facing in the US is growing barriers to entry to compete with behemoths in the form of an increasingly complex tax and regulatory structure which just isn't compatible with free market principles still applying to how those behemoths treat employees. In short, we have quasi state-sanctioned hegemons that have undue negotiating power. There are two solutions: nerf the barriers or buff the workers through more targeted regulation. There's no single regulatory body that can do the former, so the only option left is the latter.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Totally agree. If the problem under consideration is "corporate behemoths", then this is just nibbling at the edges. Which is better than nothing, but we can/should do much more. But, if the problem is the much smaller/simpler "remove barriers to job changes", this is a pretty significant change in policy. Not as significant as divorcing medical coverage from employment, but still pretty big.
- 4y ago
malandrew 4y ago
I would say that this issue is the lack of consideration for the duration of the non-compete. If a company is willing to pay me my full salary for the entirety of the non-compete, they seem reasonable. That said, it should still be something that’s optional.
petechapman 4y ago
> economic system starts to resemble feudalism. I've long been a proponent that capitalism is not just about the economy but is instead a larger force more akin to feudalism.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

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.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      The FTC is specifically proposing a carve-out for selling a business. So it is mentioned. The parent made a blanket statement about non-compete legality.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwayyy479087 4y ago
The state where all the oligarchs live - NY - doesn't explicitly ban them but treats them as a joke in court.

zozbot234 4y ago

Yes, it's always been an obvious anti-trust concern. Contracts in restraint of trade should not be enforceable.

donatj 4y ago

> anti-free-market policy I go back and forth on that. It seems like the free market ideal would be to allow them and if people didn't like them they wouldn't sign them. No one telling anyone what to do. It certainly hasn't panned out that way though.

bern4444 4y ago
No, individuals have far less market power than institutions and businesses. Especially since health care is tied to employment. It's a privileged position if you can 'just say no' to a company that has non compete clauses - the majority of workers cannot.
horsawlarway 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power The idea is well known for hundreds of years, but here's a particularly salient quote for your line of thinking. ---- "In so far as the reduction of costs of production and distribution thus achieved is reflected in reduced prices, society as a whole ultimately benefits from the use of standard contracts… The use of contracts has, however, another aspect which has become increasingly important. Standard contracts are typically used by enterprises with strong bargaining power. The weaker party, in need of the goods or services, is frequently not in a position to shop around for better terms, either because the author of the standard contract has a monopoly (natural or artificial) or because all competitors use the same clauses. His contractual intention is but a subjection more or less voluntary to terms dictated by the stronger party, terms whose consequences are often understood only in a vague way, if at all." F Kessler, ‘Contracts of Adhesion--Some thoughts about Freedom of Contract’
- bumby 4y ago
  Workers have mechanisms to balance that power. E.g., forming a union, which could ensure the contract is more fair. I don't know what to make of the fact that they don't use them. In your opinion, is there a reason why something like a union couldn't be used to negate or modify non-compete clauses?

giantg2 4y ago

There are many things that still resemble feudalism. Per capita tax, property tax, conservation easements on deeds, zoning, etc. I'm not saying these things are necessarily good or bad. Just saying that most laws around income, taxes, and land have their roots in feudalism. And of course the ruling class still make themselves well to do off of the hard work of their subjects, just not to the same degree as kings. And yes, I know, people today have "choices" via voting. Even if those choices are between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich without the bread.

simplotek 4y ago
> There are many things that still resemble feudalism. Per capita tax, property tax, conservation easements on deeds, zoning, etc. Nonsense. Contributing back to society doesn't even register as a concern when your employer can force you to not have any alternative to work for him under his term, and apply harsh penalties to you and your loved ones if you step out of line. These nonsensical anarchist tropes only come in play to pull the focus away from the one-sided social arrangement between employers and employees in the US which his highly exploitative and outright resembles feudalism.
- seneca 4y ago
  Your reply is nonsense much more than the one you're replying to. Voluntarily entering a contract with bad terms has a lot less in common with feudalism than heavy handed government does. It's fine that you prefer the authoritarian government, but it doesn't change what feudalism was.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    "Voluntarily" is doing a lot of work there. There is a huge power imbalance between employers and unemployed people looking for a job, especially as they may face bankruptcy and homelessness if they go too long without income.
    - giantg2 4y ago

alistairSH 4y ago

...the most anti-american... I dunno, they seem pretty spot on for the US. In the US, "free market" generally means one of two things... 1 - a fictional market with no externalities and perfect information symmetry. Ayn Rand fans think it's real, but it only exists in an ECON-101 textbook. 2 - code for "rules for thee, not for me" as said by the billionaire class. Or, really anything that keeps them rich and the rest of us beholden to them for basic life necessities. Edit - I prefer a phrase like "functioning market" to "free markets". Or maybe "fair market"? Not sure. The current labor market in the US is dysfunctional, at least when considering the share of increased productivity seen by the working classes (vs business owners). Edit2 - changed "perfect information asymmetry" to "perfect information symmetry"

Pet_Ant 4y ago
> perfect information symmetry FTFY. I believe that is what you meant to see or > perfect, no information asymmetry
ballenf 4y ago
Basically agree, but what we're increasingly facing in the US is growing barriers to entry to compete with behemoths in the form of an increasingly complex tax and regulatory structure which just isn't compatible with free market principles still applying to how those behemoths treat employees. In short, we have quasi state-sanctioned hegemons that have undue negotiating power. There are two solutions: nerf the barriers or buff the workers through more targeted regulation. There's no single regulatory body that can do the former, so the only option left is the latter.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Totally agree. If the problem under consideration is "corporate behemoths", then this is just nibbling at the edges. Which is better than nothing, but we can/should do much more. But, if the problem is the much smaller/simpler "remove barriers to job changes", this is a pretty significant change in policy. Not as significant as divorcing medical coverage from employment, but still pretty big.
4y ago

malandrew 4y ago

I would say that this issue is the lack of consideration for the duration of the non-compete. If a company is willing to pay me my full salary for the entirety of the non-compete, they seem reasonable. That said, it should still be something that’s optional.

petechapman 4y ago

> economic system starts to resemble feudalism. I've long been a proponent that capitalism is not just about the economy but is instead a larger force more akin to feudalism.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]