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."
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.
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.
It really depends on where you work. I'm over 40 and my time on the job has been increasing as I go along
- first job was 6 weeks (company closed)
- second job was 20 months (got fed up with trying to work in the system and got a better offer).
- third job was three years (split between two companies the second one died off)
- forth job was four years (got a better job and didn't want to do on-site support in the jungles of Guyana)
- fifth job was six and a half years. (left because they gave my company vital function to experts in the field: 2 new grads in China).
- Current job is going on 4 years, don't plan on leaving it till I retire
I'm one of the newest people in my group too. Most people have been there at least 8 years, some at 15+ years. At 42 I'm in the middle of the pack when it comes to age too (we did recently get a bunch of young wippersnappers in their 30s). It is still software engineering. Though I do pay price of it not being very dynamic and bleeding edge it is stable.
As I and others have said its all depends on where you work. Some places are very unstable, others are stable.
Software Engineer & Writer of Military Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog: petermwright.com Twitter: WrightPeterM
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 got hashed out in CA years ago, and IIRC the court ultimately agreed with the ex-employee that in a high skills field the ex-employer would need to pay more than the former salary to compensate for the aging of skills and loss in promotion opportunities. So, effectively non-competes are unenforceable in CA because no employer wants to put in the contract that if the employee chooses to leave the company may decide to give them a big fat raise and pay them for two years to do nothing, i.e. to achieve clear enough "meeting of minds" to make the contract enforceable was too onerous a burden for employers.
Idaho has chosen to go the other way. Which gives a strong incentive for the most skilled workers to leave the state.