3 ms·

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 jo

by 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.
- dmlerner 4y ago
  How are you not informed in advance? Every job I've had, there's a contract I sign in advance with all terms, and no addendum on day one. I'd think you could refuse to sign an addendum, and even sue for promissory estoppel if they fire you for not signing.
  - not_the_fda 4y ago
    Depends on state law. In "at will" to work states they can terminate you for anything.
  - short_sells_poo 4y ago
    Yes, a lawsuit aimed at a big corporation will be surely at the fingertips of everyone who is forced by circumstances to sign such clauses. Let's be real, most people will sign whatever is presented to them on day 1 of their new employment because they need money now. They could refuse to sign, in which case they will be shown the door and encouraged to seek opportunities elsewhere. That in 4 years time they might've won a legal battle they can't afford is little consolation when they won't be able to make rent now. Nevermind that once they are in a legal battle, they'll have great difficulty being hired again. Please don't take offense, but the level of disconnect shown on HN from the prospects and struggles of an average person is sometimes staggering.
NegativeK 4y ago
Non-competes require governments to enforce them; abolishing them is the actual anti-interventionist strategy.
sebzim4500 4y ago
Why is what you are describing preferable to the government outright banning them? California has effectively banned non-competes for years and their economy seems to have survived the ordeal.

by cbb330 4y ago

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.

dmlerner 4y ago
How are you not informed in advance? Every job I've had, there's a contract I sign in advance with all terms, and no addendum on day one. I'd think you could refuse to sign an addendum, and even sue for promissory estoppel if they fire you for not signing.
- not_the_fda 4y ago
  Depends on state law. In "at will" to work states they can terminate you for anything.
- short_sells_poo 4y ago
  Yes, a lawsuit aimed at a big corporation will be surely at the fingertips of everyone who is forced by circumstances to sign such clauses. Let's be real, most people will sign whatever is presented to them on day 1 of their new employment because they need money now. They could refuse to sign, in which case they will be shown the door and encouraged to seek opportunities elsewhere. That in 4 years time they might've won a legal battle they can't afford is little consolation when they won't be able to make rent now. Nevermind that once they are in a legal battle, they'll have great difficulty being hired again. Please don't take offense, but the level of disconnect shown on HN from the prospects and struggles of an average person is sometimes staggering.

NegativeK 4y ago

Non-competes require governments to enforce them; abolishing them is the actual anti-interventionist strategy.

sebzim4500 4y ago

Why is what you are describing preferable to the government outright banning them? California has effectively banned non-competes for years and their economy seems to have survived the ordeal.