5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - rat87 12y ago
    You also have the choice to bad mouth non-competes live in states where they are mostly invalid(like California) and support laws banning non-competes.
- SilasX 12y ago
  Waiver of a right != denial of a right If someone takes your apples, it makes a huge difference whether you agreed to trade them for the taker's oranges. A right that you cannot waive is not a right; it is an obligation.
  - lukifer 12y ago
    In that case: am I allowed to voluntarily pledge every minute of my life to you for the next 7 years in exchange for an all-expenses trip to the other side of the world? If I change my mind, are you allowed to imprison and torture me until I comply to the terms of the agreement? While this is textbook ad absurdum, there is some point at which a line is drawn on which rights may be voluntarily surrendered, especially as regards selling one's future self. (Or if you believe that all rights can be voluntarily sold/surrendered: Can I voluntarily surrender my right to surrender rights? Can I sign a contract that says I may no longer sign contracts?)
    - SilasX 12y ago
      Indeed, there is a line; the existence of a right to free choice of labor ain't it though.
      - lukifer 12y ago
        You tell me where you think the line should be drawn: (a) You agree not to leave Apple* for Google, for 3 years. (b) You agree not work for Google, ever. (c) You agree not to develop software for anyone besides Apple for 3 years. (d) You agree not to develop software for anyone besides Apple, ever. (e) You agree not to do any kind of work for anyone besides Apple for 3 years. (f) You agree not to do any kind of work for anyone besides Apple, forever. Personally, I don't think any of those contracts should be enforceable by law, regardless of what people foolishly choose to sign. * (the choice of Apple being entirely arbitrary)
        SilasX 12y ago
        However I draw the line, it would not be grounded in appeal to the existence of a right to choice in labor, as you attempted to justify it. There are good arguments for prohibiting certain arrangements; the one you gave wasn't one of them. That's all I was trying to say.

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.
- rat87 12y ago
  You also have the choice to bad mouth non-competes live in states where they are mostly invalid(like California) and support laws banning non-competes.
SilasX 12y ago
Waiver of a right != denial of a right If someone takes your apples, it makes a huge difference whether you agreed to trade them for the taker's oranges. A right that you cannot waive is not a right; it is an obligation.
- lukifer 12y ago
  In that case: am I allowed to voluntarily pledge every minute of my life to you for the next 7 years in exchange for an all-expenses trip to the other side of the world? If I change my mind, are you allowed to imprison and torture me until I comply to the terms of the agreement? While this is textbook ad absurdum, there is some point at which a line is drawn on which rights may be voluntarily surrendered, especially as regards selling one's future self. (Or if you believe that all rights can be voluntarily sold/surrendered: Can I voluntarily surrender my right to surrender rights? Can I sign a contract that says I may no longer sign contracts?)
  - SilasX 12y ago
    Indeed, there is a line; the existence of a right to free choice of labor ain't it though.
    - lukifer 12y ago
      You tell me where you think the line should be drawn: (a) You agree not to leave Apple* for Google, for 3 years. (b) You agree not work for Google, ever. (c) You agree not to develop software for anyone besides Apple for 3 years. (d) You agree not to develop software for anyone besides Apple, ever. (e) You agree not to do any kind of work for anyone besides Apple for 3 years. (f) You agree not to do any kind of work for anyone besides Apple, forever. Personally, I don't think any of those contracts should be enforceable by law, regardless of what people foolishly choose to sign. * (the choice of Apple being entirely arbitrary)
      - SilasX 12y ago
        However I draw the line, it would not be grounded in appeal to the existence of a right to choice in labor, as you attempted to justify it. There are good arguments for prohibiting certain arrangements; the one you gave wasn't one of them. That's all I was trying to say.