Slashdot Mirror
Are America's Non-Compete Laws Too Strict? (nrtoday.com)
Slashdot reader cdreimer shared an article from the New York Times:
Idaho achieved a notable distinction last year: It became one of the hardest places in America for someone to quit a job for a better one. The state did this by making it easier for companies to enforce noncompete agreements, which prevent employees from leaving their company for a competitor... The result was a bill that shifted the burden from companies to employees, who must now prove they have "no ability to adversely affect the employer's legitimate business interests." The bar for that is so high that Brian Kane, an assistant chief deputy in the Idaho attorney general's office, wrote that this would be "difficult if not impossible" for an employee to do...
For the most part, states have been moving toward making it easier for people to switch teams... The most extreme end of the spectrum is California, which prohibits noncompete agreements entirely. Economists say this was a crucial factor behind Silicon Valley's rise, because it made it easier for people to start and staff new businesses. But as states like Utah and Massachusetts have tried to move closer to this approach, legislators have run into mature companies trying to hold onto their best employees... A recent survey showed that one in five American workers is bound by a noncompete clause. They cover workers up and down the economic spectrum, from executives to hairdressers.
Two economists tell the newspaper that since 2000, U.S. workers have changed their jobs less and less, which is sometimes blamed on strict employment contracts as well as the occupational licensing laws which affect a third of America's workforce. The Times reports that noncompete clauses ultimately end up keeping workers' salaries lower, "because most people get raises when they switch jobs."
For the most part, states have been moving toward making it easier for people to switch teams... The most extreme end of the spectrum is California, which prohibits noncompete agreements entirely. Economists say this was a crucial factor behind Silicon Valley's rise, because it made it easier for people to start and staff new businesses. But as states like Utah and Massachusetts have tried to move closer to this approach, legislators have run into mature companies trying to hold onto their best employees... A recent survey showed that one in five American workers is bound by a noncompete clause. They cover workers up and down the economic spectrum, from executives to hairdressers.
Two economists tell the newspaper that since 2000, U.S. workers have changed their jobs less and less, which is sometimes blamed on strict employment contracts as well as the occupational licensing laws which affect a third of America's workforce. The Times reports that noncompete clauses ultimately end up keeping workers' salaries lower, "because most people get raises when they switch jobs."
While I understand the need to switch jobs and stay competitive (who pays best, gets the best talents etc.), this isn't likely to be a future scenario. It's more likely that every employee will fight like mad to even have a job.
Who works 3+ years for the same company these days? Or rather: who manages to KEEP a job for 3+ years? Sure, there is a few - but I bet it ain't the majority, not the ones I've been talking to - not me, I'm almost in my 50s and I can't remember the time I ever worked for a company for 3+ years, 2-3 years at best, if I was lucky.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
So, let me know if I have this right:
Americans need to stay in their jobs to have good health insurance
American corporations can fire almost anybody anytime, for any reason
Americans have almost no vacation time away from work
And now:
Americans can't move to a different job, if it happens to be in the same field.
So explain to me why this isn't corporate slavery.
In all fairness, it was likely a bunch of old white guys that passed this law.
Companies: No they aren't strict enough. We should ensure that an employee who doesn't want to work for us never works anywhere again!!!
Employees: Too strict, can't feed family, hate job, help!
Of course non-competes are ridiculous, a kind of indentured servitude, but does anyone working in a "rank and file" kind of job (say, making less than $100k) have any experience in having them enforced against you?
My employer once asked that I sign one (after about 2 years of employment). I gave it to a friend who was an employment lawyer and he said that unless I was given "consideration" (title, raise, etc) specifically tied to signing it, it was unenforceable in my state. His advice was just to sign it and know it wasn't enforceable.
My theory has always been that unless you're some kind of high wage "key player", most of the time it's just not worth an employer's time and effort to enforce them. They have to take some time and effort to figure out where you're working, know enough details about the job to know if its actually competitive (made harder if the new employer is an actual competitor), and if they get that far, actually turn to attorneys to enforce the contract. And none of this takes into account the potential for subterfuge -- quitting to become a "freelancer", moving out of state or a new employer actively furthering subterfuge by hiring you freelance for a period or hiring you under a bogus title.
I don't see any employer action happening for less than a $10,000 outlay and that kind of spending being just does not seem worth it for "ordinary" employees.
Of course there may be exceptions, like an "ordinary" employee who happens to work closely with a particularly important trade secret or filling a job in a very narrow field where the opening itself may have been the subject of gossip among the field's community.
The Times reports that noncompete clauses ultimately end up keeping workers' salaries lower, "because most people get raises when they switch jobs."
Which is exactly why employers try to impose them--in order to deny their workers leverage in salary/benefits negotiations. This subverts the free market for labour. Which is exactly why non-competes should be illegal.
TL;DR: If I'm valuable enough to keep out of the hands of a competitor, then you can pay me like it.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
depends on your job and where there is virtually no safety net and few governmental services left I'd say the bloody laws shouldn't exist in the first place. That said I'm not naive enough to think I can keep the mega corps from using government to their benefit simply by doing away with the thing (e.g. that anarcho-capitalism that's all the rage with the kiddies nowadays). I'd rather see robust safety nets and social services in place than waste my time fretting about these abuses. As mentioned if your entire quality of life didn't depend on landing a really sweet job this would be less of an issue.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
IIRC from the BLAW 20x or 30x classes I took a long time ago, for a contract to be binding the two parties have to be equals.
Someone that needs a job is – generally speaking – not ever going to be the equal of a potential employer that's dangling a contract saying "sign it or no job." Such a contract should be unenforceable AIUI. And you always have the option to strike out that clause as you're negotiating. (Whether the potential employer accepts it is something else.)
Now, whether a court is going to agree that such a contract is unenforceable is a different question.
As for me, when I resign from my jobs I don't tell my soon to be ex-exployer where I'm going. When they ask, I tell them I haven't decided and I'm taking some time off before I decide what I'm doing. Well, Saturday and Sunday are time off. It's really none of their business where I'm going next.
So between a) (that clause of) the contract being generally unenforceable, b) it being none of their business, and c) I'm perfectly capable of not using any of previous employer's IP in my new job, I personally feel like I'm in pretty safe territory. It has served me well for the 30+ years I've been working as a software developer.
And BTW, IANAL. Ask your own lawyer for advice in your particular situation.
I have no problem with this if the employee is compensated for duration of the non-compete term. Forcing the former employee to work out of his or her industry without any compensation should be illegal.
I looked into moving to Idaho (seriously). It's fucking beautiful, small town chill, and I already come from a state with colder weather, so I wouldn't mind the climate at all (I like cold plenty). But, the laws are insane. It's also one of only 3 states where it's illegal to be high on marijuana in public. Actually, because of the way marijuana metabolites are detected, it's illegal to have metabolites in your system in public. That could be over a month after you last used marijuana for regular users who quit! Insane people. Beautiful state. Fucked up laws.
Screwing over large amounts of your work force is how unions start.
What jobs and fields are employers seeking non-compete clauses? I signed a non-compete on my first programming job. Thereafter, I have not done so. In one case I was already working there and new contract paperwork came through and I refused. My boss sided with me and it was fine.
My hope is that people can simply just refuse to sign them and they will go away. But my experience may be an exception, not the norm. I'd like to hear other people's experiences.
= contractual slavery.
1. Slavery.
2. Non-competes for 99.95% of workers.
3. H1B and H2B visas and the current fight over them (see "we won't let you get your immigration service pick until you acquiesce to more cheap labor" as exhibit A).
4. Outsourcing.
5. "Free trade" by which we mean, companies are allowed to move production to other countries and leave easily the moment the workers get uppity.
At the end of the day, it comes down to a simple fact: the elite doesn't want to pay a fair wage, so they'll use state power to drive it down. Some methods are more extreme than others, but it is a more extreme or less extreme on the straight forward sin of treating workers like property that works for you.
I'm sure some pedantic ass or triggered SJW is going to shriek "muh racism" or "muh free marketz," but the fact remains that the mentality and motives are related.
They have gotten way out of line versus their original intent. I've heard of cashiers at stores being asked to sign noncompetes. I imagine they might actually be valid in .01% of jobs, but for most of us they are used as a scare tactic.
In Sweden these are legal, but voided when your employment ends. I.e you can have a non-compete clause, but it is only enforceable as long as you pay the salary.
When you work for these companies, they have you sign a contract that says anything you do, on the job or off, belongs to them. Any inventions/patents you come up with, if you write a book, if you CONTRIBUTE TO OPEN SOURCE, create youtube videos, anything you do on your own time is theirs and they own it, control it, and get to monetize it!
Whatever happened to working to live? Now it seems like you can't have a life... You can't improve your skills... All you can really do is sit home and watch TV.
Why does "creimer" have dedicated trolls, and is cdreimer creimer or one of the trolls?
Just trying to keep up with slashdot tabloid news..
You can't sign away your freedom in a contract Little Mermaid style. If a company doesn't want you to work for a competitor, it must keep providing you some benefit, such as an annual sum of money, in return for as long as such a contract lasts. And you are free to break the contract and forefeit the benefits.
I'm a capitalist that loves big business. I need to ban my ex employees from working anywhere for 10 years to protect my "IP".
If you work in a company which makes a product Y, and you leave to another company which makes a type of product Y, the only way you hurt the original company is to bad mouth them or out right steal their IP. If you do neither, your okay and hence don't violate a non-compete.
I hear a lot, especially from one side, about how excessive regulations are crippling the US's ability to compete but never about this sort of regulation that hampers individual employees.
How about it, anti-regulation crowd?
*crickets*
Non compete should have a rule that they can not exceed twice the severance pay period. I.E. If they are giving you 5 months salary, they can give you a non-compete for 10 months. They should also have a geographical range equivalent to their reasonable customer range. If all their clients are in New York, you should be free to do business in Chicago. If all there clients are in America, Canada should be free for you.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The problem would be simple if it was just Non-Disclosure agreements.
I don't think many of these articles cover enough of the clauses I have seen in these agreements. Things I or others I know have had to deal with include:
Sometimes employers put the above in writing; but other times they just refuse to process your exit until they get the information. And once one employer adds a new restrictive clause, it seems that others start jumping on the bandwagon.
Many companies in Canada have you sign agreements like this on your first day of work. Almost nothing you sign like this at work is enforceable since your boss has told you to sign it. For it to be valid you had to agree to it and sign it before starting. This does create a problem in promoting someone into a position where they do end up with company trade secrets.
Despite evidence that banning non-competes is good for society as a whole, lots of people pop up to defend them or claim that they are unenforceable.
If they are mostly unenforceable, then banning them would have little effect.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I got a Black Amazon Dot, which matches my vintage 2006 Black MacBook.
Fascism. Odd how such an important part of recent history has been completely forgotten and turned into an empty symbol. Even intelligent discussion (rare but it does happen) gets shut down by the Godwin bots.
The philosophy and ideas NEVER die after the battles they can not be stopped completely, it is a non-stop fight which has NOT been waged as the very same ideas get implemented in new ways which could manifest in equally bad ways in the future with nobody seeing it coming. History rhymes, it never repeats and if all we do is memorize dates we will not be equipped to recognize it.
1. blog posts exaggerate and pick out the extreme cases, just because Idaho passes some bone-headed restrictive law doesn't mean that every state makes it hard to change jobs. In California most non-compete clauses are essentially unenforceable. 2. "Americans have almost no vacation time away from work" : this is hyperbolic. Most Americans in tech positions have 2-3 weeks of vacation plus company holidays. 3. there's a reason that America has 5% unemployment and a thriving economy
This is why one should never signed a non-compete clause of ANY contract that did not stipulate that one would be compensated for the time frame that one could not compete. Anybody who accepts a non compete without any compensation in any profession is not thinking it out clearly or just doesn't care. Either way it is not very smart to sign your rights away to not be allowed to make a living.
Why does "creimer" have dedicated trolls [...]
A bunch of 14-year-old wankers think they're entitled to have fun at my expense by 1) dog piling my comments with their juvenile comments; 2) creating fake accounts to post as me while abusing me at the same time; and 3) posting my name, email address, website URLs, and/or superimposing an image of my head on dick pics on Russian image websites. It's only been 3.5 months.
[...] and is cdreimer creimer or one of the trolls?
As a copyright owner, I reclaimed cdreimer as my own. As for the other fake accounts, I set them up with disposable email addresses and tossed the login info into the bit bucket.
Just trying to keep up with slashdot tabloid news..
If the 14-year-old wankers left me alone, I would have left Slashdot months ago. Now I'm here to stay. After all, they convinced me that the dot com bust relic known as Slashdot was still relevant today. Based on web traffic and ad revenue numbers for my websites, I have to agree.
... and Idaho is absolutely right. There is no way someone going to work for a competing company, who has a duty to that company to act to their fullest capacity to further their benefit, cannot possibly do so without violating the confidentiality agreement they had with their prior employer.
This is called an irreconcilable conflict of interest. The confidentiality agreement is in conflict with the duty of best effort, and this conflict cannot be resolved. It is perfectly reasonable to forbid an employee, who has expertise in confidential and trade secret information, from taking that information to a new employer.
Or at least it should go both ways. If the employer want to keep me, I should be compensated accordingly, and similarly if I want to stay I need to demonstrate sufficient utility for the company.
Here in California, we are a right to work state. They can terminate me tomorrow, and I reserve the right to leave anytime (with a customary two weeks notice, but that's not strictly necessary). This keeps the balance, so that I keep working, and they provide good benefits, as long as we want to continue the relationship.
Of course the situation is not perfect, but I think this was one of the drivers of Silicon Valley's success. People form, disband, join, and leave companies all the time. The ideas flow, and good products are generated.
This is what libertarians don't seem to understand. All laws, rights, and contracts are collectively enforced via the court system. When you sue someone, government agents are used to collect assets by force if necessary (if a bank refuses to cooperate, the government/courts will bring the hammer down on them). When someone is evicted, government police are used to do the job. Therefore, there is a collective say in the terms of contracts.
Nope. Employment at will and other draconian laws have little effect on the employment rate. They just make wall street more profitable at the expense of main street. Take a look at this chart from May 2017 EU member states.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Unemployment_rates,_seasonally_adjusted,_May_2017_(%25)_F2.png
This is probably an attempt to make Idaho more "business-friendly." Problem is, talent that deals with IP is mobile, and good luck getting them to move to Idaho in the first place.
ITech companies need a pool of talent to draw from - nobody is going to set up business where they can't hire any locals without getting sued. So, Idaho, you just shot yourself in the foot.
And if you accidentally get suckered into such a deal, just move to a jurisdiction outside Idaho for your next job. Unless you're into potato farming, it shouldn't be hard, and you'll be eager to move elsewhere after a while anyway. After all, Idaho pays 30% less than the national average. Only 3 out of 44 counties beat the US average.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The former employer calls up the new employer and says "you know Bob who you're thinking about hiring? Well, we think he will inevitably reveal our trade secrets and we'll sue to prevent it".
HR at the new company goes, "hmm, there's other people we could hire, let's just rescind that offer to Bob"
In all fairness, it was likely a bunch of old white guys that passed this law.
You mean Republicans. And Idaho is your typical republican state - it ranks 44th out of 50 states in terms of per capita income. Why would anyone on a tech site even consider Idaho? Sounds like a career-limiting move.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
...what Kunta Kinte went through. Us niggas have to stick together!
Ad revenue. LOLOL you are a liar now as well? You know geeks don't click on ads.
Not every nerd is a geek. Based on my data, nerds do a lot clicking.
So you are a 40 year old man, on slashdot arguing with 14 year old kids? Yea that sums up the Creimer we all know and love. A child molester lul.
I've been reassured by these 14-year-old wankers that that work in IT for $200K per year, they have homes and family, travel around the world, and love Russian dicks. I'm sure they behave like "adults" in polite society and around their families.
A bunch of 14-year-old wankers think they're entitled to have fun at my expense by 1) dog piling my comments with their juvenile comments; 2) creating fake accounts to post as me while abusing me at the same time; and 3) posting my name, email address, website URLs, and/or superimposing an image of my head on dick pics on Russian image websites. It's only been 3.5 months.
Cripes, #1 is just normal slashdot behaviour for anyone who attracts attention. As for posting my name, email address, etc., we had this thing called a phone book that gave everybody's name, address, and phone number. When Briana Wu was posting all that fake drama about being doxxed, I posted all my contact info in the same discussion. Result? Not a single phone call, text, or mail. As for "name and email address", I post under my legal name, and my email address is right there in my profile. Only cowards post pseudo-anonymously or anonymously. And they're stupid because there really is no such thing as anonymity online anyway, and it will only get worse in the future. It's the nature of the beast. Be different - meet the future head-on.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
...dangled in front of him. It was just a master control position in a TV station, at the time a $9 an hour job. Yet they were wanting him to sign this. He said he needed his lawyer to look at it, and they never brought it up again.
You can't copyright your name. Go ahead and "reclaim" cdreimer from GitHub, you lying weasely fat fuck.
I see Hungary, Germany, Malta, and the Czech Republic beating the US 4.4% unemployment rate. The official EU wide rate is nearly twice the US rate, and 24 of the 28 countries have a higher unemployment rate than the US. Is that really what you wanted to highlight?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You can't copyright your name. Go ahead and "reclaim" creimer from GitHub, you lying weasely fat fuck.
https://github.com/CReimer
Idaho, with the highest proportion of cattle mutalations in the lower 48, 'cept we call it Bar-B-Q. Idaho, protecting Mormons from the ravages of Canadian beer for 153 years. Idaho state pastime: survivalist rumors. State motto: more further wester than Montana. To paraphrase U Utah Phillips who probably wasn't the first to say it: Idaho; where the men are men and the sheep are nervous.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
You can't copyright your name. Go ahead and "reclaim" cdreimer from GitHub, you lying weasely fat fuck.
This is my account on GitHub. Maybe you meant "creimer" in Germany?
You can't copyright your name. Go ahead and "reclaim" creimer from GitHub, you lying weasely fat fuck.
Have you stopped to consider why I publish content under a pen name? My legal name isn't that unique.
I'm surprised that no one made the connection to the guitarist of Women.
http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/504488/christopher-reimer-women-guitarist-dead-at-26
Now he's posting Amazon affiliate links as AC. Creimer give it up buddy.
I don't post as AC. This troll isn't reusing my affiliate link like the other trolls do.
That guy had talent.
It's cute that you think creimer matters in the real world.
As a content creator, you must defend your copyright or risk losing it.
What if you're employed by a machinery builder and the only way to work on its machines is to take some know-how with you? After all, the machine is the IP.
What if machinery in general works the same way, that you can't help but use the same know-how that you painstakingly developed over years and years, on and off the clock? To say that portions of the product at the new company are going to look very similar to how it was done at the former employer is an understatement.
That's right, this creimer is a no talent ass clown
It's irrelevant.
Once you go black, you never go back...
Yes indeedy! Someone loves them some chocolate fudge, amirite?
Good, fuck off forever you useless waste of space, and take your tiny tiny dick with you.
Companies should have to compete over talent just like every other market.
We'll make great pets
There are different state laws that determine what the rules are.
Now, an interesting complications follows: Can the employer enforce the rules of one state in another?
The general principle is that an ex-employer cannot prevent you from working and earning a living. The rules used to be:
1) The restriction must be for a limited period of time. (6 months is common.)
2) The restriction must be for a limited geographical area. (But there is no agreement on what is "limited.")
3) The restriction must be for a single industry.
To go beyond these bounds may require compensation, often in the form of an exclusive consulting agreement.
However, my former employer (I retired) has been adding a non-compete clause to all their consulting contracts (except for lawyers, of course) that requires 7 years of non-competition, in any field anywhere, and without compensation. It is for this reason I refused to accept their contract. I had a subordinate who had signed such a contract and after they stopped using him they informed him that he couldn't work for 7 more years. I advised him to ignore it.
Why work tech in Idaho? On of the poorest and least educated states in the union? Because in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
Donald? Go back to Twitter, dude.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"Now the trumpet summons us again - not as a call to arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are; but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, 'rejoicing in hope patient in tribulation', a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself." -- John F. Kennedy, 1960 inaugural speech
IMNSHO, Jimmy Johns sandwiches are cardboard and cheap as possible ingredients, with no taste or artistry involved! Ugh!