4 ms·
> And finally, we need more steps like the FTC’s recent move to ban all employee noncompetes (no carve outs, no limitations, no exceptions). YOU need to be out
by zer00eyz 2y ago
> And finally, we need more steps like the FTC’s recent move to ban all employee noncompetes (no carve outs, no limitations, no exceptions).
YOU need to be out there beating the drum for a major exception to this. With out laws to ban raiding (and we dont have those on the federal level) this is a bad policy. It means that google doesn't have to aquire-hire your team, they can just poach all of them wholesale.
> Second, we need to prioritize forceful remedies to foster competition
If history does show us something its that outside a pure monopoly (ATT) these business have a shelf life. Roll the clock back 60 years, US Steel had the same market share as apple. ATT was a thing (and as a monopoly got smacked). But no one talks about GE or IBM or RCA as major players in tech... and they were tech giants of their day.
I am all for restrictions on these sorts of enterprises. But the bigger major step we can take is taxing them appropriately, not letting them all get the pass they have. Shift the tax burden to the largest players and you make room at the bottom and solve a host of other issues.
As for the rest of these proposals, it sounds like a lot of bureaucracy. I feel like we need to revisit our history and re-read our Orwell desperately, were literally repeating the mistakes of the past.
- whimsicalism 2y agoI would strongly oppose any governmental attempt to ban poaching/cold-calling and would see it as a blatant power grab for owners against workers. If you want to retain your team, match the offer.
- worik 2y agoNo thanks. (I am not in the USA, I am in a country where on-competes must be paid for and short) Exemptions and carve out will be used for (and politically paid for, with the mind bending official bribery system the USA runs in politics) by the powerful to consolidate their power. Small firms have a lot of power over their employees. Small firms have to give their employees a reason to work for them, money is part of the picture, and small companies have to be well capitalised to pay competitive salaries. But small companies need to be places people want to work. Giving employees the power to contract an employee into not quitting is a recipe for very bad behaviour. In my experience the best and the worst employers are small firms. We need more of the best and fewer of the worst, laws that incentivise being bad do not help
- zer00eyz 2y agoIF your in the EU: https://www.squirepattonboggs.com/-/media/files/insights/publications/2023/11/how-european-authorities-are-foiling-anti-competitive-hiring/how-european-authorities-are-foiling-anticompetitive-hiring.pdf?rev=4b525819f4ce489dae5abdacb9c90b78 https://www.squirepattonboggs.com/-/media/files/insights/pub... Raiding is something they frown on there. They go so far as to call it anticompetitive.
- hanniabu 2y ago> this is a bad policy. It means that google doesn't have to aquire-hire your team, they can just poach all of them wholesale. It's called a free market, pay up
- thefaux 2y agoPlease explain how certain players having more or less unlimited capital advantage that allows them to snuff out any potential competition leads to more aggregate freedom.
- epicureanideal 2y agoSounds like something to be handled by anti-trust, not suppressing employee freedom.
- luma 2y agoHow does giving my employer exclusive rights to my future work lead to MY freedom?
- hanniabu 2y agoWe are not your slaves, you have no rights to us
- dlkf 2y ago> It means that google doesn't have to aquire-hire your team, they can just poach all of them wholesale. Imagine a skilled worker taking a new job that pays better. What a nightmare scenario.
- zer00eyz 2y agoThis isnt about workers. Let's say tomorrow that you find a better way to do search. It's going to crush google, and MS. You hire a team, smart people the VC's throw money at you. Everyone is happy. Your growing and the next darling of tech. Google comes in and offers to buy you out. You decline cause you know that they are blockbuster and your Netflix. In retaliation google hires all your staff, and sends them to the roof to rest and vest. Thats great for the dozen people who got a great deal from google. It's bad for the rest of the world.
- maxsilver 2y ago>. Google comes in and offers to buy you out. You decline cause you know that they are blockbuster and your Netflix. In retaliation google hires all your staff, and sends them to the roof to rest and vest. If you know for certain that "they are BlockBuster, you are Netflix", then why are you not cutting them a deal to make it worth them staying? This is absolutely about workers -- specifically, companies not wanting to pay workers anything close to what they are worth.
- zer00eyz 2y agoFrom a benefit perspective: When apple uses its dominant position to tax everyone 30 percent apple benefits, and the market does not. When apple uses its dominant position to pay your team 30 percent more and stifle the free market by driving competitors out of business. you benefit, Apple benefits more and the market does not. Is apple being a giant market dominating force a good thing or a bad thing? Your getting the high salary does not reflect your value, or the market value of your skill. It reflects apples desire to put your former employer out of business.
- biftek 2y ago> It means that google doesn't have to aquire-hire your team, they can just poach all of them wholesale. Doesn't California already ban non competes? The industry has seemingly thrived there and I've never heard of it being a problem.
- zer00eyz 2y agoIn CA there is also a ban on raiding: "California law protects employers from raiding by competitors. An employee or competitor may not take a large proportion of your employees with the intent of driving you out of business. You must prove the employee or competitor had bad intent. Evidence of intent includes emails, texts, and witness testimony about what the bad employee or competitor did or said when soliciting your employees." From: https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/stealing-employees-in-california-31980#:~:text=California%20law%20protects%20employers%20from,or%20competitor%20had%20bad%20intent https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/stealing-employees-in-cali....
- asoneth 2y agoI'm curious how you define "raiding"? I could imagine cases where a well-capitalized company hires all the members of a competitor's team at 2x salary only to fire them six months later with the goal of destroying their competition. But other than that I'm not sure I see a problem. If a company "can just poach all of [your team] wholesale" then they were probably being under-compensated to begin with and are better off at their new company. After all, the primary point of banning noncompetes is to protect employees from employers who use noncompetes to suppress their wages. The increased competition is a nice ancillary benefit, not the primary motivation.
- animal_spirits 2y agolots of small companies are reliant on the cheap prices big tech companies offer. by taxing big companies all that does is shift the burden of costs to the small business, making it harder for them to grow.
- JohnFen 2y agoThe race to the bottom in terms of pricing is destroying a lot of value in many industries and in the longer term is harmful to everyone who isn't already a big company. People and small companies kicking that addiction will be painful, yes, but important to everyone having a healthier life.
- Projectiboga 2y agoMaybe limit the non-compete to very high income employees, but have a carve out if they are let go during one of those big layoffs.
- esbranson 2y ago> With out laws to ban raiding … this is a bad policy. "At will" employment explicitly allows raiding. "If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it." (IOW otherwise use an employment contract.)