Slashdot Mirror
CA Vs. MA In Battle Over Non-Compete Clause
Lucas123 writes "A case was filed with superior courts in California and Massachusetts involving a former EMC top executive who is trying work for HP. The case is throwing into relief Massachusetts's and California's differing approaches to non-compete clauses in employment contracts. California courts have argued that non-competes hamper a person's ability to traverse the marketplace freely for work, while Massachusetts courts say the agreements actually afford freedom to develop technology without the fear of IP theft."
you have someone who made enough money not to have to work again during the non compete period- otherwise what the hell are you supposed to do, work at burger king?
However if a company wanted you to take 6 months paid leave before you could leave I have no problem. But once you stop paying me you stop telling me what to do, that's mostly the way employment works.
Ask yourself this: which state has Silicon Valley? Which state is home to the vast majority of tech companies?
And which state is known for overreacting to animated LED characters by deciding they're bombs and evacuating the state capital over them?
By the way, this has already been answered in a previous Slashdot article. Someone has done the research: California's lack of non-compete agreements helped them become a center of technology in the US. Massachusetts' non-compete agreements helped ensure that no tech company prospered there. (The only company I can think of that was based in Massachusetts is Digital, and they died what, over a decade ago?)
The freedom to seek gainful employment should not be infringed.
While not a specifically enumerated right of the people, it is both expected that we work in a productive manner, and beneficial to the society in which we live.
The only way I could possibly agree with the enforcement of such a contract would be through compensation - have them pay his salary for each of the 12 months they expect him to be employed.
Even then, it deprives society of the good work he could be doing. Why should the government agree to such a thing?
No. Once you stop paying me you don't have any right to tell me what to do. You don't want me to join a competing company for say a year, you can damn well pay me for a year to sit on my ass. I'm fairly sure that they are not allowed in the UK anyway, so I'm fine.
It appears most of EMC is technically "located" in foreign tax havens (click Locations & Production). As such, I don't think the US Justice System should waste US taxpayer money enforcing EMC contracts. They like the low taxes in the Bahamas and Bermuda, let's see them protect EMC.
I'm almost always in favor of more open markets over regulation and control, so, IMHO, non-competes are stupid and a restraint of fair trade.
Sounds a little self-contradictory there. The non-compete was not part of "regulation and control"; it was part of a contract negotiated supposedly in good faith by both parties in an open employment market. If you think non-compete's are a restraint of fair trade, then I suppose your head asplode, because it's the regulations that forbid them and nothing else. Only government regulation is supporting fair trade here, not the open market.
Of course, those of us who aren't ideological fanatics and who realize that governments of the people are the only thing standing between us and outright slavery by corporate/military/religious/political overlords aren't a bit surprised. Governments that are too big or too small both lead to slavery, and finding a reasonable balance in between is almost impossible, which is why the phrase 'Situation Normal, All F***ed Up' was coined. :)
In that case, it appears socialism isn't working out too well for the east-coast states, since they're investing a lot of money into education, only to have all their graduates flee after they graduate.
California was admitted to the union as a Free State. I think that once you set a foot in California you immediately become free.
Companies use non-compete agreements to cement their monopolies, like Microsoft. I wonder why non-competes aren't attacked by the anti-trust lawyers.
Silicon Valley and California benefit from the lack of non-competes, people move around more and ideas are "cross-pollinated" to many locations.
Companies have no business telling people where they can and cannot work. Don't want to risk losing your people? I guess that means you value them. Maybe try not treating them like shit and then you won't lose them.
They do it to intimidate you, even though they know that they're not legally binding. Also, companies that operate in multiple states will try to impose terms of employment that can be enforced in whichever states are most anti-employee. If they're not enforceable somewhere else, they hope the employee won't realize that.
They really should be abolished nationwide. It's just another way of asserting control over you even when you're receiving no compensation for the restrictions they're forcing on you.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
How about getting a job with a company that does not compete? How about the similar job for a company in a different line of business?
The more highly educated and specialized you become, the more likely it is that the situation you describe simply doesn't exist.
I can say with a high degree of probability, my skills and experience pretty much lock me into the industry I am now, and given the diverse areas in which my company does work, anyone who would hire me could be considered a competitor.
It's not reasonable to tell someone to find a complete different industry or you can't work.