3 ms·

> All non-competes are harmful, end of story. Ah. How could I be so foolish as to think there might be some nuance to the situation! For what it’s worth a lot

> All non-competes are harmful, end of story. Ah. How could I be so foolish as to think there might be some nuance to the situation! For what it’s worth a lot of friends in finance are/were bummed about how this law might affect gardening leave. [0] [0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/whether-wall-street-garden-leaves-survive-noncompete-ban-is-an-open-question-080016698.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/whether-wall-street-garden-le...

threatofrain 2y ago
That does sound anti-competitive. Imagine if Google poaches hot people in industry and then just sits on them during a critical market time, doing nothing, because they don't have any particular work for them, they just don't want them working for the competition. Those garden contracts sound like a variation of the same idea. Anyways, if I understand FCC's position right, they also had nuance for specific non-competes.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  at least with garden leave the person is at least getting compensated. it's substantially better than a minimum wage worker at ~~Subway~~ Jimmy John's being told they're not getting paid and they also can't make sandwiches for six months.
  - threatofrain 2y ago
    That's one scenario I'm afraid of... that businesses have rational incentive to push boundaries for workers that aren't ultra high value, and that terms like these basically force you to stay at Subways.
    - mikestew 2y ago
      GP’s comment was not a hypothetical, the names were just changed to protect the guilty: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compete-clauses-following-settlement.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compet...
      - bobthepanda 2y ago
        well, i mixed up which sandwich chain it was. but yeah.
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      they already do this. we may as well force companies to pay up or shut up when it comes to noncompetes.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
I'm not on the "100% of non-competes are harmful". But definitely 98-99%. I agree with California's exceptions: >The only exceptions are non-compete or restrictive covenants that fall within one of the narrow exemptions authorized by statute, all of which relate to the sale of the goodwill of a business, or of a substantial ownership stake in the business. Courts interpret these statutory exceptions very narrowly. If you have enough skin in the game that you can make life or death decisions for a company (or take out money in stock that can sink the company), you probably have enough money that a non-compete won't put you on the streets.

threatofrain 2y ago

That does sound anti-competitive. Imagine if Google poaches hot people in industry and then just sits on them during a critical market time, doing nothing, because they don't have any particular work for them, they just don't want them working for the competition. Those garden contracts sound like a variation of the same idea. Anyways, if I understand FCC's position right, they also had nuance for specific non-competes.

bobthepanda 2y ago
at least with garden leave the person is at least getting compensated. it's substantially better than a minimum wage worker at ~~Subway~~ Jimmy John's being told they're not getting paid and they also can't make sandwiches for six months.
- threatofrain 2y ago
  That's one scenario I'm afraid of... that businesses have rational incentive to push boundaries for workers that aren't ultra high value, and that terms like these basically force you to stay at Subways.
  - mikestew 2y ago
    GP’s comment was not a hypothetical, the names were just changed to protect the guilty: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compete-clauses-following-settlement.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compet...
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      well, i mixed up which sandwich chain it was. but yeah.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    they already do this. we may as well force companies to pay up or shut up when it comes to noncompetes.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

I'm not on the "100% of non-competes are harmful". But definitely 98-99%. I agree with California's exceptions: >The only exceptions are non-compete or restrictive covenants that fall within one of the narrow exemptions authorized by statute, all of which relate to the sale of the goodwill of a business, or of a substantial ownership stake in the business. Courts interpret these statutory exceptions very narrowly. If you have enough skin in the game that you can make life or death decisions for a company (or take out money in stock that can sink the company), you probably have enough money that a non-compete won't put you on the streets.