6 ms·

I completely agree, and yet I feel thinking this way misses the point: non-competes are blatantly disrespectful of human rights, and so on some level, the effec

by lukifer 12y ago

I completely agree, and yet I feel thinking this way misses the point: non-competes are blatantly disrespectful of human rights, and so on some level, the effects on innovation shouldn't matter. If you take voluntary contracts to the extreme, it would include the ability to sell one's self into servitude, which is something that used to happen, in addition to the more violent and coercive forms of slavery that are more often remembered. Today we would consider the notion of owning someone, even with their permission, to be morally repugnant, and so we have defined limits on how much of yourself you can sell, both in the present and the future. I understand that it is a problem to invest in people and have them leave. But them's the breaks: you don't get to have your cake and eat it too when you want to harvest the ruthless efficiency of a capitalist market. Maybe those employees should have that much negotiating leverage, or maybe the greater economy is better off if they poach a few coworkers and start a new company. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen; someone else will be happy to take your place, and give your workers a good enough deal such that they have no interest in leaving.

sheepmullet 12y ago
"I understand that it is a problem to invest in people and have them leave. But them's the breaks" In reality it is easy to keep the people that you have invested in. Pay them significantly above market rate and treat them well. If an employee who has been with you for 3+ years isn't worth 5x market rates to you then you haven't invested in them and trained them properly. If they are worth 5x market rates to you then pay them 2x market rates and most will stay.
- javajosh 12y ago
  I like what you're saying, and wish companies thought like that, but most lots of companies look at devs like fruit to be squeezed until dry, then discarded. This is particularly true in game dev. Granted, the devs are partly to blame for going along with this terrible plan, allowing themselves to be pushed to work 80 hour weeks, all-nighters, etc. A smart employer would actively prevent their employees from working like that, because you're right when you say that a dev can be worth a great deal more if they stick around a while.
jaredhansen 12y ago
> non-competes are blatantly disrespectful of human rights No, they aren't, and this kind of statement trivializes things that actually are. The world is full of truly appalling rights violations, and voluntary actors signing noncompetes really are not among them. Compare: A: "I want to come work for you!" B: "OK, but we have a lot of secrets here, so if I hire you, no working for my competitors for a while, OK?" A: "OK!" with A: "Anyone who criticizes the regime shall be imprisoned!" These are not merely differences of degree.
- lukifer 12y ago
  I beg to differ; at the risk of appealing to authority, Article 23 of the UDHR [1] states that free choice of employment is a basic human right. Just because an injustice is mild compared to extreme cases, it does not mean it is not injustice. Even if non-competes are only intended to prevent Wonka employees from selling recipes to Slugworth, the end result is vendor lock-in for humans. If your skill set involves deep specialization, the transaction cost of seeking new employment is abandoning your skills completely, and/or stalling your career for N years. Though I can understand guarding specific trade secrets, I don't think anybody has the right to dictate how another human spends their productive hours. [1] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
  - dmk23 12y ago
    You have free choice to avoid employment with companies that require non-competes. Moreover you are even welcome to start a company that does not require non-competes and later on have the pleasure of investing in professional development of people who may later turn their talents against you.
    - kelnos 12y ago
      Not if there are no (desirable/worthwhile) companies that take people on without a non-compete. And what if you work for such a company but want to strike out on your own? The non-compete clause doesn't differentiate between an existing competitor and one you found yourself.

by lukifer 12y ago

sheepmullet 12y ago

"I understand that it is a problem to invest in people and have them leave. But them's the breaks" In reality it is easy to keep the people that you have invested in. Pay them significantly above market rate and treat them well. If an employee who has been with you for 3+ years isn't worth 5x market rates to you then you haven't invested in them and trained them properly. If they are worth 5x market rates to you then pay them 2x market rates and most will stay.

javajosh 12y ago
I like what you're saying, and wish companies thought like that, but most lots of companies look at devs like fruit to be squeezed until dry, then discarded. This is particularly true in game dev. Granted, the devs are partly to blame for going along with this terrible plan, allowing themselves to be pushed to work 80 hour weeks, all-nighters, etc. A smart employer would actively prevent their employees from working like that, because you're right when you say that a dev can be worth a great deal more if they stick around a while.

jaredhansen 12y ago

> non-competes are blatantly disrespectful of human rights No, they aren't, and this kind of statement trivializes things that actually are. The world is full of truly appalling rights violations, and voluntary actors signing noncompetes really are not among them. Compare: A: "I want to come work for you!" B: "OK, but we have a lot of secrets here, so if I hire you, no working for my competitors for a while, OK?" A: "OK!" with A: "Anyone who criticizes the regime shall be imprisoned!" These are not merely differences of degree.

lukifer 12y ago
I beg to differ; at the risk of appealing to authority, Article 23 of the UDHR [1] states that free choice of employment is a basic human right. Just because an injustice is mild compared to extreme cases, it does not mean it is not injustice. Even if non-competes are only intended to prevent Wonka employees from selling recipes to Slugworth, the end result is vendor lock-in for humans. If your skill set involves deep specialization, the transaction cost of seeking new employment is abandoning your skills completely, and/or stalling your career for N years. Though I can understand guarding specific trade secrets, I don't think anybody has the right to dictate how another human spends their productive hours. [1] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
- dmk23 12y ago
  You have free choice to avoid employment with companies that require non-competes. Moreover you are even welcome to start a company that does not require non-competes and later on have the pleasure of investing in professional development of people who may later turn their talents against you.
  - kelnos 12y ago
    Not if there are no (desirable/worthwhile) companies that take people on without a non-compete. And what if you work for such a company but want to strike out on your own? The non-compete clause doesn't differentiate between an existing competitor and one you found yourself.