5 ms·

I dislike the government asserting that I am not a fully competent adult, capable of making my own decisions about what agreements I enter into and which I do n

• biohacker42 18y ago
  I agree with the core of your argument, however in this instance we have private market manipulation. In most situations the employers have more leverage then the employee. The very best hires will not accept sub par offers. But a lot of others, including some very good ones, will. The result being that private companies influence the labor market for their own benefit and everyone else's detriment. That includes other employers and employees. Think of non competes for utilities, as in only one cable co. can serve your area. Does that make the private market manipulation more obvious? Private market distortion is no better then public market distortion. Cartels, non-competes, etc, are legitimate targets for government busting from my libertarian perspective.
  • tptacek 18y ago
    This move doesn't do anything to reduce the "market manipulation" you allege. If employers are negotiating from a position of strength, they'll get all manner of other concessions, starting with wages and benefits --- which is all most people care about. I don't see the principle that you're arguing from here. Your comparisons are a little silly, too. There are good reasons (right of way, regulation) and bad (monopoly concessions, lobbying, corruption) that private utilities own entire markets. These have nothing to do with the forces behind noncompetes. No noncompete has helped establish any company's monopoly in any product or service you can name, even regionally. Noncompetes are a trade. Companies provide employees with access to resources, client lists, and trade secrets. They want to ensure that rolodexes aren't shopped and product plans aren't bootlegged. These are reasonable goals. Employment contracts are blunt and inefficient instruments for accomplishing those goals, but that doesn't make the intent corrupt.
    • biohacker42 18y ago
      Noncompetes are a trade. Companies provide employees with access to resources, client lists, and trade secrets. They want to ensure that rolodexes aren't shopped and product plans aren't bootlegged. Isn't that an NDA? I see non-competes as nothing but attempts to reduce competition. Except that is exactly how markets are NOT supposed to work. You're supposed to out-compete, not simply reduce competition.
      • tptacek 18y ago
        No. A sales account manager at AcmeTron can dump the entire CRM database, walk it over to WidgetCorp, and run all those same accounts for them without ever once violating an NDA. Frankly, and I hope respectfully, if you can't see the distinctions here, I'm not sure why you'd expect anyone to take your opinions about noncompetes seriously. You might also consider wording your ideas better: "noncompetes are nothing but attempts to reduce competition", for instance, might not be your best rhetorical play. I'm pretty ambivalent about noncompetes. They've hurt me more than they've helped me, both as employee and (in concert with) employers. But I don't like shoddy arguments.
        • biohacker42 18y ago
          I'm not a salesman so I wouldn't know but it seems to me A sales account manager at AcmeTron can dump the entire CRM database, walk it over to WidgetCorp, and run all those same accounts for them without ever once violating an NDA. is the very definition of why you need NDAs. But again maybe I'm looking at this from an engineer's perspective and it's different for sales. In either case, I don't think we'll change each others minds here on the Internet.
          • tptacek 18y ago
            In a consulting agreement, you may find "Non-use" terms along with "Non-disclosure" terms in the IP language; technically, this would prevent a consultant from stealing the sales rolodex and then using it to contact customers. Otherwise, you violate an NDA by disclosing to someone not bound under the same NDA actual confidential information. Nothing prevents you from using confidential information to compete "unfairly" with your employer. You can add whatever terms you'd like to whatever you call a "confidentiality" or IP agreement, but now you're on a slippery slope that leads to de facto noncompetes.
• frig 18y ago
  It has nothing to do with your imputed (in)competence. All a decision like this would mean is: the state of MA has decided it's not in the interests of the state of MA to enforce noncompete clauses, so from here on out it will not enforce them. You can still sign whatever you want.
  • tptacek 18y ago
    What does it matter what you can sign, if the contract doesn't have the support of courts to make it binding?
    • frig 18y ago
      I know what you're getting at. I was commenting specifically because I hate sloppy language and sloppy thought: there's just no meaningful sense in which "a particular kind of contract becoming non-enforceable" simplifies into "not being able to sign a particular kind of contract"; the latter implies some kind of intrusive intervention -- a noncompete gestapo slapping pen-from-hand should you try to sign such a contract -- which clearly wouldn't be the case under the proposal.
      • tome 18y ago
        Exactly. The OP was suggesting that Mass. is taking an action to prevent him signing contracts. On the contrary, it is saying it will stay out of the way an refuse to take action to enforce a certain sort of contract.
• toby 18y ago
  There are already plenty of things that can't be enforced by contract. You can't sell yourself into slavery, for instance, because the state isn't allowed to make sure you submit to your agreement. As another commenter said, sign whatever you like. Some companies make you sign non-competes in California, we just all know they don't mean anything.
  • tptacek 18y ago
    Is slavery the only comparison you've got? Because slavery isn't remotely like a noncompete, which makes your argument sound weak.
    • redrobot5050 18y ago
      Um, slavery is one of those things that've been outlawed -- meaning the courts will not recognize it as an institution. It makes his argument look strong. Outside of the state of nevada, he could've also said prostitution.
      • tptacek 18y ago
        Slavery wasn't a matter of contract law.
        • tome 18y ago
          Indeed, and once non-compete agreements are no longer enforced in Mass., non-compete agreements will no longer be a matter of contract law.
          • tptacek 18y ago
            You're not addressing my point. Slaves (in the most obvious case) didn't enter into unfair contracts to make themselves slaves. So, you get points for snark, but not for advancing an argument.
            • 18y ago
• donaldc 18y ago
  In theory, the ability to sign a non-compete increases an employee's options. In practice, if they're enforced, many employees no longer have much option for employment without signing them. But don't worry, even if this bill passes, you'll still have the option of signing enforceable non-competes in almost every other state in the U.S.
• mellis 18y ago
  Non-competes could be seen (from a company's point of view) as a form of the prisoner's dilemma: everyone is better off if no one requires non-competes, but if everyone else requires them than I need to. Therefore, a law of this sort could potentially improve conditions for all companies in a way that individual companies could not accomplish themselves. That is, the government is not trying to tell you what to do, it's trying to create a better business and employment environment.
  • tptacek 18y ago
    Really? Finish your thought. Why is everyone better off if nobody requires noncompetes?
    • mellis 18y ago
      Non-competes are basically a source of friction in the employment market. They create inefficiencies because employees can no longer go to work for the company to which they will provide most value (which will presumably reward them commensurately).
• dsil 18y ago
  Driving a car, voting, and signing a lease are all much much simpler to do than understanding a non-compete agreement. And actually I think the line of "most" people falls somewhere in the middle.