Slashdot Mirror


'Send Noncompete Agreements Back To the Middle Ages' (bloomberg.com)

Stephen Mihm, Bloomberg contributor and associate professor of history at the University of Georgia, argues against the use of noncompete agreements (NCAs) because they limit the free flow of employees and discourage innovation. An anonymous Slashdot reader shares an excerpt from his report: The agreements, known as NCAs, forbid workers from taking valuable skills acquired from one employer to a competing firm. They first appeared in the Middle Ages, when master artisans required them of apprentices because they didn't want to face direct competition once their proteges set up shop on their own. Courts eventually sanctioned these restraints, provided they didn't harm the public interest, establish a monopoly or unduly restrain an employee's right to work. But this trend toward wider use of the contracts, which gathered steam from the late 18th century onward, conveniently omitted that they originally applied to skilled laborers operating in a pre-capitalist society. Yet employers increasingly used noncompete clauses to limit the mobility of unskilled wage laborers along with skilled workers.

Have NCAs helped or hindered economic growth? The most famous study looked at California, one of only a handful of states that do not permit NCAs. The de facto prohibition of the agreements affected skilled and non-skilled workers alike, and employees high and low could jump from job to job without any fear of legal reprisal. The mobility seems to have disseminated innovation very swiftly from company to company, creating the kind of dynamism and technological spillover that helps foster long-term success. The prohibition of NCAs clearly benefited Silicon Valley. Further proof was provided by the comparison to another claimant to high-tech supremacy: Route 128 in Massachusetts. The conclusion was that California's ban -- and the embrace of the agreements in Massachusetts -- helped tilt the balance of power to California.

83 comments

  1. Economic espionage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No non-compete ever blocked an IP theft but they are good to block assholes that download all your CAD diagrams or Coke recipes or whatever and then take them to a competitor.

    1. Re:Economic espionage by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      If "those assholes" take the knowledge back to China or Russia and get paid handsomely for it, good luck suing or prosecuting them if they stay outside of countries in the US sphere of influence.

    2. Re: Economic espionage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yeah, you gotta catch them before they leave. For example.

      https://m.timesunion.com/news/article/FBI-searching-house-in-Niskayuna-13122464.php

    3. Re: Economic espionage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that relates to non-competes how? All non-competes can achieve is prevent them from working in another US company. What you're looking for is trade secrets and other NDA stuff, not non-competes.

    4. Re: Economic espionage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i am offshore consultant.
      The company requires NCA, preventing me working for the customers ...
      But, there is also leach company in the US which is signing service agreements with all those big companies requires IT bodies ...
      so my flow is:

      me ---(NCA)-->Company1(offshore) ----> Company2(US) --->

      So ... NCA is forbidding me to work for customers(Company1) = Company2 ...
      There is nothing mentioned about me working for CompanyA ... CompanyZ

  2. Not a problem by quonset · · Score: 1

    Get rid of non-compete clauses so people can go wherever they want with the knowledge they have.

    We should also get rid of any law which says someone who works for government can't leave and use their knowledge working for a firm lobbying the very place they just left.

    No problem, right folks?

    1. Re:Not a problem by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Informative

      No one thinks ex-government employees lobbying because of what they know is problematic. It's an issue because they're selling who they know, those relationships. And, more importantly, what \they're selling to current government officials is the ability to also become a highly paid lobbyist... if they vote the right way now. It's a deferred bribe/government official safety net.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > someone who works for government can't leave and use their knowledge working for a firm lobbying the very place they just left.

      They can lobby for the place they are at already. Why would it be a problem after they leave? Both cases occur every day.
      Maybe you should go back and hit the bong again.

    3. Re:Not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have to register and disclose in that case, failure to do so is a crime.

    4. Re:Not a problem by Z00L00K · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Non-compete clauses are close to slavery.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:Not a problem by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Non-compete clauses are close to slavery.

      It is difficult to convince the powerful to care about the weak. It is better to argue that a change of policy is in their own interest.

      California has long banned non-competes. That has benefited both workers and investors.

    6. Re:Not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Non-compete clauses are close to slavery.

      It is difficult to convince the powerful to care about the weak. It is better to argue that a change of policy is in their own interest.

      California has long banned non-competes. That has benefited both workers and investors.

      I agree completely. Under no circumstances should it be possible to sell a right. (In a non competes case the purchase price would be the original job.)

      You also shouldn't be able to be bought off by the rich and powerful to silence your story. They can pay and ask you not to speak, but they shouldn't be able to go after you if you do it anyway.

    7. Re:Not a problem by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Under no circumstances should it be possible to sell a right. (In a non competes case the purchase price would be the original job.)

      You also shouldn't be able to be bought off by the rich and powerful to silence your story. They can pay and ask you not to speak, but they shouldn't be able to go after you if you do it anyway.

      This is why I think we should eliminate the fungibility of intellectual property. If patents and copyrights were an inalienable personal right of the creator rather than being real estate, any exploiting IP that you created would have to maintain a personal contractual relationship with you, and only within your lifetime. No more having to sign away your IP rights on employment and then having the company kick you to the curb and plug in a cheap offshore replacement. No more patent troll companies hoarding the inventions of others.

    8. Re:Not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Get rid of non-compete clauses so people can go wherever they want with the knowledge they have.

      > We should also get rid of any law which says someone who works for government can't leave and use their knowledge working for a firm lobbying the very place they just left.

      > No problem, right folks?

      We ACs get lower scores here for whatever we post, but registered users can post drivel like that and get a 2 score. 8-(

      "quonset": get yourself training in logic and Ethics and then really think hard the next time you post. Reading your post is painful on a semantic level.

    9. Re:Not a problem by cdecoro · · Score: 1

      Under no circumstances should it be possible to sell a right. (In a non competes case the purchase price would be the original job.)

      You also shouldn't be able to be bought off by the rich and powerful to silence your story. They can pay and ask you not to speak, but they shouldn't be able to go after you if you do it anyway.

      This is why I think we should eliminate the fungibility of intellectual property. If patents and copyrights were an inalienable personal right of the creator rather than being real estate, any exploiting IP that you created would have to maintain a personal contractual relationship with you, and only within your lifetime. No more having to sign away your IP rights on employment and then having the company kick you to the curb and plug in a cheap offshore replacement. No more patent troll companies hoarding the inventions of others.

      This is why I think we should eliminate the fungibility of intellectual property. If patents and copyrights were an inalienable personal right of the creator rather than being real estate, any exploiting IP that you created would have to maintain a personal contractual relationship with you, and only within your lifetime. No more having to sign away your IP rights on employment and then having the company kick you to the curb and plug in a cheap offshore replacement. No more patent troll companies hoarding the inventions of others.

      "Fungibility" presumably isn't the word you're looking for, which more-or-less means "interchangeable." Money is fungible, because $1 from one source can be interchanged with $1 from another source, and one usually doesn't care exactly where any given dollar came from.

      On the other hand, any particular valid patent is by definition novel (or it would be invalid, see 35 U.S.C. 102) and therefore not "fungible" with another.

      I suspect you mean "alienability," which refers to the ability of an owner of a right to sell or otherwise transfer it (and which I see you also use).

    10. Re:Not a problem by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      A fungible asset is anything that can be exchanged for other assets in trade. My point is that intellectual property is treated in law as though it were real estate, not as an inalienable (cannot be separated from the original owner) personal right.

      Imagine the world we would have if you could, at a time of financial desperation, sell off your right to free speech, entirely or on specified topics. The purchaser could speak on your behalf, while you would be legally silenced unless you came into money and were able to purchase speech rights from someone else. Employers would routinely force you to sign a no-speech agreement while you were at work, while the less scrupulous ones would limit your off-work speech rights too. Those non-disparagement clauses that now get laughed out of court would now be enforceable. Imagine the potential of speech troll companies..

      Does such a world seem bizarrely unlikely to you? That's how we treat IP.

    11. Re:Not a problem by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Interesting concept. I think this needs a short story.

  3. Using them to protect trade secrets... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Informative

    Using them to protect trade secrets is one thing, using them to render former employees unemployable without risking lawsuits is unacceptable. The US in general needs stronger worker protection laws.

    1. Re:Using them to protect trade secrets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Workers should be protecting themselves. Don't sign such agreements. Work for companies that don't require such agreements. If you are forced to because of circumstances beyond your control, leak the sensitive information to the internet anonymously when you leave. In general, the people that whine for more regulation to protect workers are the second tier talent that feel like they should be able to call their own shots but whose knowledge and abilities don't carry enough worth to allow that to happen. Ironically, many of these same people are the ones who will claim the there are too many government regulations and vote for morons like Trump.

    2. Re:Using them to protect trade secrets... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Using them to protect trade secrets is one thing,

      Using them without giving fair compensation (aka lots of money) is unacceptable.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Using them to protect trade secrets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      It isn't always an option. My wife had to sign a contract with a NCA. Her choice was really sign it or don't work as no other company in the immediate area for her skill set at the moment. However we did check first with a lawyer and they verified that the NCA was completely unenforceable given she is the one bringing the skills to the business and they aren't providing any additional compensation for the 12 months she would be unable to work after leaving them. Lawyers advise was sign it as it was basically a meaningless unenforceable clause that amounted to unfair restriction of trade.

    4. Re:Using them to protect trade secrets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, well, rendering former employees unemployable is the goal. Protecting trade secrets and such only applies to a small subset of employees, and upper management. The entire reason that these are used for rank-and-file employees is to intimidate them into never quitting or hunting for better jobs, so you can keep their salaries low and their hours high.

    5. Re:Using them to protect trade secrets... by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      The US in general needs stronger worker protection laws.

      Warning: rant ahead.

      Part of me wants to allow red states to go ahead and [bleep] their constituents as punishment for voting for deregulation of slimy corporations.

      They were not happy with ACA keeping them alive, bitching that premiums kept them from buying a new snowmobile. Cadavers like snowmobiles also. Ride on, Deady Reddy!

    6. Re:Using them to protect trade secrets... by t0rkm3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Non-competes have nothing to do with protecting actual enforceable IP. There are laws for that. Trademark, Copyright, patents and some methods that I am probably not aware of.

      None of those require NCA to be protected. The primary place that I have seen NCAs litigated is with sales people and consultants. The plaintiff is mainly concerned with silly stuff like client lists and relationships.

      If the company sucks enough that the customer will follow a consultant and/or the account manager, rather than sticking with the parent company for value adds (such as leveraged knowledge, larger available workforce, economies of scale with regard to cost controls) then the parent company isn't doing their job anyway, and probably deserves to lose the business.

      Those who say NCAs are used to attempt capture the employees are absolutely correct, everyone else seems to have swallowed corporate line.

      Sad.

    7. Re: Using them to protect trade secrets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When I worked in sales, I applied my persuasive skills and knowledge of the companies inner workings to getting the company to provide good service to my customers. Lots of companies do as little for the customer as they can get away with.

      Given a competitive market with other companies offering equivalent products, customers will indeed follow good sales staff to a new company.

    8. Re:Using them to protect trade secrets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using them to protect trade secrets is one thing,

      Using them without giving fair compensation (aka lots of money) is unacceptable.

      Exactly this, if you are signing an NCA it must come with fair compensation for it. You can't just say, once you work here you can't work at any of my competitors for 12 months.

    9. Re:Using them to protect trade secrets... by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      Many of these contracts are unenforceable just as in your example, and the companies are well aware of this but they're added in because they know many employees will be afraid of breaking the terms and won't consult a lawyer, so they will end up obeying them needlessly and at their own cost.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    10. Re:Using them to protect trade secrets... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Worker protections? You mean the deplorables? We hate them, remember?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    11. Re:Using them to protect trade secrets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non-Competes are a restraint of trade for the employer, they aren't enforcable and to try to enforce them is a lot of money.

      The correct way to sign those kinds of agreements is to write in at the bottom

      "This contract is unenforcable until the employer delivers notice to employee of intent to enforce to employee. Employer cannot delvier a notice of intent for a time length of less than this contract. When employer delivers intent, employer is to pay, within 14 days, no less than 3 times the employee's average annual salary, multiplied by the number of years this contract is to be executed for. If For example the employee's annual average salary is $100,000, the total due at time of notice would be ($100,000*X*Number of years).

      Notice must be delivered within 30 days of employment at a new employer, otherwise employers option to execute this contract will have expired.

      If employee is no longer under the employ of employer, employee is not liable for violating any signed NDA Agreement with employer until notice is delivered."

      You then sign it and hand it to them, then state you will require a notarized copy prior to your start date.

      If they balk, you then you go nighmare-mode on them and rip into the HARD. State to them "Why would I want to work for an employer who actively hires idiots and saps? What, you expect me to sign an unenforcable contract and abide by it? What country do you think this is, exactly? X is now 2X, and if I have to deal with any more stupidity on this, it's 5X. You don't like it, don't sign it."

      Because the contract is always unenforcable until they pay you.

    12. Re:Using them to protect trade secrets... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Worker protections? You mean the deplorables? We hate them, remember?

      Another example of how you hate the right. When Hillary was talking about the deplorables, we both know she was talking about the alt right. What I want to know is why you keep smearing the entire right wing with the same brush.

      For someone who identifies as right wing you sure seem to despise them. It's weird. Maybe that's why you're so angry.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:Using them to protect trade secrets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NCA shouldn't be enforceable without pay.

      If you want to keep my off the market, compensate me for staying put.
      If you aren't willing to pay then my compliance is clearly not worth anything to you.

      If I get some money on the side I can make a deal with my new employer to take a lower pay for not working on competing projects.

    14. Re:Using them to protect trade secrets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of me wants to allow red states to go ahead and [bleep] their constituents as punishment for voting for deregulation of slimy corporations.

      I think you base that idea on the very red maps published by those states to show how legit they are.
      The majority of voters in those states still votes blue, it's just that gerrymandering makes their votes not count.
      That is when we don't take voter suppression and election fraud into consideration.

      A clear majority of the people living there doesn't want their crappy politics.
      It is kinda dickish to want them to suffer the consequences of the actions they didn't want to take.

    15. Re: Using them to protect trade secrets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds more like he's confident in his ability to find work for an employer that won't require that kind of contract. I personally haven't run across one myself, and if I did, I simply wouldn't take it.

    16. Re: Using them to protect trade secrets... by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but as much as it makes us feel good when customers follow us (me as a consultant, you as sales). We have to look at the facts that if our replacement was empowered, trained, and presented with materials to help retain the customer... it would make our job a lot harder.

      An example, if I left Delloitte (which I've never worked for) and established my own consultancy, I would be able to beat them on rate, but I would be able to compete at scale, nor would I be able to provide ancillary and coordinated services. If the Delloitte AM doesn't win that business back... Either AM sucks, or the company doesn't provide adequate support to the AM.

    17. Re: Using them to protect trade secrets... by WizardOfZid · · Score: 1

      When I was layed off from a tech job about 12 years ago, I didn't have a non-compete but the company insisted on keeping my cell phone number even though I had no involvement in sales. All the company did on the cell was to pay a part of the bill. It was an annoyance but i di I not feel it was worth it to fight. Sent a note to most of my contacts with the new number and went on my way. Was my old company being a pain, YES, but I have done so much better after that 4 years. They actually did me a favor while losing some contracts in the process. I didn't actively try to keep my contacts, they simply found me at my new gig. Seems a bit of poetic justice.

    18. Re:Using them to protect trade secrets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Workers should be protecting themselves. Don't sign such agreements. Work for companies that don't require such agreements.

      Many people like to eat.

      If you are forced to because of circumstances beyond your control, leak the sensitive information to the internet anonymously when you leave.

      And how does serving time in prison help with finding a job?

    19. Re: Using them to protect trade secrets... by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      Has Breaking an NCA ever resulted in prison time for reasonable cases ?

  4. I'm stuck in one now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm stuck in a non-compete agreement and it restricts me from working in my specialization which kills my jobs prospects. My lawyer told me that I basically need to leave, stay low, and then hope they don't decide to come after me.

    1. Re:I'm stuck in one now. by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      Given that you said "jobs prospects" instead of "job prospects", I'm guessing you're in the U.K. My advice -- come to California.

    2. Re:I'm stuck in one now. by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2

      Get another lawyer.

      So far as I know there's no country in the western world that lacks "Right to work" laws. That means that if your specialty limits your career options and you're in a non-compete, then you should be able to employ "right to work" since no company has the right to lock you into your position by making it impossible to find employment elsewhere.

      I think right to work sometimes even has requirements that if they don't offer you an exit clause... something like "You can't compete for 2 years, though if you wish to be released, the company will be responsible to cover your salary during that time" etc... then you have a really good case. Remember, the non-compete isn't to take ownership of you. It's to protect the company from IP theft. If they believe they can't protect their IP any other way, then it's their responsibility to cover the cost of distancing you from the IP during that time.

      If they release you at some point, you probably could get a lawyer to make sure you're compensated for your loss of work associated to the non-compete as well.

    3. Re:I'm stuck in one now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Move to Texas. In Texas, NCAs are illegal. It is a right to work state. The government wants its citizens working, because workers pay taxes. Texas considers such agreements illegal and a restraint of trade.

    4. Re:I'm stuck in one now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You spelled California wrong. Here is the deal with Texas and NCAs:

      Are non compete agreements enforceable in Texas?
      To protect company goodwill and confidential information, a Texas employer can utilize a non compete agreement. A non compete agreement is enforceable in Texas if it is supported by valid consideration, and is reasonable in time, geographic scope, and activities to be restrained.

      Source: https://www.texasnoncompetelaw.com/articles/noncompete-agreements/

      Misconception 1: Non-compete agreements are not enforceable in Texas. This is the most common misperception. Texas Courts will enforce a Texas non-compete agreement as long as it comports with the non-compete statute, Texas Business and Commerce Code Section 15.50. The statute provides that if the non-compete agreement is ancillary to another enforceable agreement (think enforceable employment agreement), the restrained employee is given consideration (often trade secrets), and the restraint is reasonably limited in scope, duration, and geography, then the court is likely to find the non-compete agreement enforceable. As an employer, you want to be sure to hit these marks when implementing a non-compete or considering whether to enforce your non-compete agreement.

      Source: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d5ff1e0e-6442-4b0c-a89f-a2c5350b3299

      Compare that to California:

      Non-compete agreements are automatically void as a matter of law in California, except for a small set of specific situations expressly authorized by statute.[11] They were outlawed by the original California Civil Code in 1872 (Civ. Code, former 1673).[12]
      Out of state agreements are not enforceable.

      A leading court decision discussing the conflict between California law and the laws of other states is the 1998 decision Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc.[13] In Hunter, a Maryland company required that its Maryland-based employee agree to a one-year non-compete agreement. The contract stated that it was governed by and to be construed according to Maryland law. A Maryland employee then left to work for a competitor in California. When the new California employer sued in California state court to invalidate the covenant not to compete, the California court agreed and ruled that the non-compete provision was invalid and not enforceable in California. Business and Professions Code Section 16600 reflects a “strong public policy of the State of California” and the state has a strong interest in applying its law and protecting its businesses so that they can hire the employees of their choosing. California law is thus applicable to non-California employees seeking employment in California.[citation needed]

      Whether California courts are required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution to enforce equitable judgments from courts of other states, having personal jurisdiction over the defendant, that enjoin competition or are contrary to important public interests in California is an issue that has not yet been decided.[14]
      Exceptions — valid non-compete agreements in California

      There are limited situations where a reasonable non-compete agreement may be valid in California.

              Where the owner of a business is selling the entire business, or is selling the goodwill in the business, the seller may be bound by a non-compete clause.[15]
              When there is a dissolution or disassociation of a partnership.[16]
              Where there is a dissolution of a limited liability company.[17]

      Secondary Source Wikipedia, referencing state statutes and state law.

      Try again.

    5. Re:I'm stuck in one now. by gravewax · · Score: 1

      Get another lawyer. So far as I know there's no country in the western world that lacks "Right to work" laws. That means that if your specialty limits your career options and you're in a non-compete, then you should be able to employ "right to work" since no company has the right to lock you into your position by making it impossible to find employment elsewhere.

      Well they can, you just have to be clearly compensated for it. Otherwise it is an unfair restriction of trade.

    6. Re:I'm stuck in one now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in the UK. The term in the UK is job prospects. But sometimes people in the USA or UK make errors when typing, quelle horreur.

  5. I, too, once worked for another by rmdingler · · Score: 2

    I've had several employees leave to start their own businesses doing the exact same thing we do. I'm friends with all of them. We steer work to each other, and collaborate on larger contracts to compete with the bigger firms.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  6. Wrong article link by blahbooboo · · Score: 2

    You linked to "Huawei Reveals the Real Trade War With China"

    1. Re: Wrong article link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chinese stole the slashdot linking intellectual property.

    2. Re:Wrong article link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tolja Huawei was full of backdoors! Even their articles! Dishonest Chinoids again.

    3. Re: Wrong article link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either that or someone made Rudy Giuliani their Cyber Czar and let him touch the tubes...

  7. They're unenforceable and always have been by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

    With the exception of a few fringe states (specifically Massachusetts), they're generally unenforceable when it comes to preventing an employee from seeking gainful employment.

    1. Re:They're unenforceable and always have been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right they're unenforceable in some states but I think the dynamic goes the other way. I think a lot of states by default allow shit like that, right to work states and red states more than not. That's not "a few" though.

    2. Re:They're unenforceable and always have been by taustin · · Score: 2

      Whether or not it's enforceable isn't as important as whether or not you can afford the $100,000 in legal fees to prove it's not.

    3. Re:They're unenforceable and always have been by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. You have no idea.

  8. The only noncompete I ever had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was when I was as teenager and got my first job at the grocery store. The application said I wasn't allowed to also work at the other grocery store across the street at the same time.

    That one kind of made sense.

  9. Specifically in "Right to work" states... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: NO "no compete" can HOLD YOU DOWN vs. that IF/WHEN it affects your livelyhood/ability to survive...

    * BEEN there/Done that, LONG ago...

    APK

    P.S.=> Winning - it's WHAT I do, lol... apk

  10. Re: Specifically in "Right to BLOW" states... GAYp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cannot HOST my parties in states where sodomy is illegal... GAYpk

  11. lawyers still try by tobiah · · Score: 1

    Two California companies I signed with had NCAs. Rather than argue with legal I just crossed those section out, and any other I didn't like, then signed it. Didn't hear any complaints back.

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    1. Re:lawyers still try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good man. There is no need to argue as in California, they are 100% unenforceable. CA protects workers' rights there, I posted the source and state code up earlier in a comment (when someone tried to say Texas). You did exactly as you should, and rightfully so.

  12. Re:I, too, once worked for another by AnotherAnonymousUser · · Score: 1

    I'd actually love to hear more about that dynamic. Got any helpful insight on how you all work together?

  13. Optimum currency area by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Politicians supporting liberal economy should be against NCA, since labor mobility is a tenet of the Optimum currency area theory.

  14. Quote on a fellow 'polack' (lol)... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & from a 'brother' (us w/ darker skin as far as many are concerned) "Man, that guy had the UTMOST confidence in his ability - & w/ THAT kind of ability? You SHOULD have THAT confidence" https://www.youtube.com/watch?... @ position 23:40 on the YouTube player control!

    * :)

    APK

    P.S.=> Yes, Dan Marino's 1/2 polish (the BETTER half lol) - look @ him - blue eyes & same color hair as mine... apk

  15. Re:I, too, once worked for another by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Hating people who leave you (and your tribe) is an instinctive, knee jerk reaction hardwired into the more primitive part of our brains.

    Overcoming it is the medieval equivalent of marrying you and yours to other noble families to consolidate alliances.

    Even if you work for yourself, there's a mighty good probability you once worked for others in the same field. Don't hate your employees for wanting the same opportunity.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  16. It's like "insider" trading! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I promise not to benefit from the knowledge that I have obtained!

    Yeah, fuck that noise.

  17. Re:I, too, once worked for another by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2

    When someone leaves, it means that we didn't offer them something to convince them to stay. Loyalty is great if you're a dog. But when it comes to someone's ability to place food on their tables, if they believe they can do better somewhere else and I can't offer them the same benefits, that's just how it goes.

    Of course... if the guy gets your daughter pregnant, spray paints your living room and then puts up billboards bashing your company.... I think then there's reason for enmity.

  18. Correct Article Link by isugimpy · · Score: 1

    The article this post is linked to is incorrect, here is the correct one: https://www.bloomberg.com/opin...

  19. Re:I, too, once worked for another by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Of course... if the guy gets your daughter pregnant, spray paints your living room and then puts up billboards bashing your company.... I think then there's reason for enmity.

    That son of a bitch put up negative billboards? Cretin.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  20. Re: I, too, once worked for another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my case, I purchased specialist equipment my employer didn't have and hired it to them, expanding to subcontract for other companies as well.

    Easier than setting up in direct competition.

  21. Easy solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...no one forces anyone to sign. If you want the job and they want you to sign one, you can choose to sign it...it not (and not get the job)

    Easy peasy.

    1. Re:Easy solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try again, it is about unfair power imbalances. There is already an asymmetric power relationship between employee and employer. The fact that NCAs are around just tilts that power imbalance against an employee even more.

  22. employee's skills by bigtreeman · · Score: 1

    You get employed because you have skills gained from working in the field.
    The employer wants a new employee to hit the floor running.
    But they don't want those skills taken to the next employer.
    They are the employees skills, not the employers skills.
    A company is the sum of the abilities of their employees.

    --
    Go well
  23. Rewrite them, Don't accept the boilerplate by Tora · · Score: 2

    For software engineers, most NDA/NonCompetes I've seen are written to claim they own all IP except for what you exclude in a postage size stamp area at the bottom--completely unfair to the employee. I write in that area: See attached exhibit A for addendum to this contract, where I then explain that when there are clauses that are in confusion, then the addendum takes precedence, and then I list everything I've ever done, regardless of how booring, including anything posted to my blogs, social media, and personal github page; and I add clauses that the company only owns IP specifically pertaining to their existing products, and any new product work that is expressly added by their own addendum. It's about 5 pages of addition, and it basically inverts the burden of proof back to the employer. Nobody ever reads it, and I've always had to insist on getting it counter signed, but it's always counter signed.

    You have the control in these scenarios, never accept a boilerplate NDA. Attach 10 pages of addendum, rewrite it, bring your own, whatever. But don't accept the stock one, ever.

    --
    tora
    1. Re:Rewrite them, Don't accept the boilerplate by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      Have you had a lawyer weigh in? Because that doesn't sound like it really you really shifted the burden of proof. Since "no one read it", it doesn't really reflect a meeting of the minds. And since the addendum solely would be seen as the enumerating the IP that is excluded, I wonder if it would have to be read.

      I am not a lawyer, but I do know that trying to put overbroad/too lopsided language in a contract can backfire. Esp. if the other party has deeper pockets.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Rewrite them, Don't accept the boilerplate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For software engineers, most NDA/NonCompetes I've seen are written to claim they own all IP except for what you exclude in a postage size stamp area at the bottom--completely unfair to the employee.

      What you've just described is called an "IP assignment agreement" and not a non-compete. Those are different agreement. IP assignment agreements are also unenforceable in some states, like California, Washington, Minnesota and Illinois. Washington actually allows non-competes but really takes the teeth out of IP assignment agreements. I agree that IP assignment agreements are terrible. I actually work for myself, because every employer in my state has an overbearing IP assignment agreement and I want to build my own product in parallel to freelancing. It's bonafide retarded that I have to freelance just to be able to build a product. I should really just move to one of the aforementioned states and leave my shithole state wondering how they got left behind (again).

    3. Re:Rewrite them, Don't accept the boilerplate by Tora · · Score: 1

      Most companies I've worked with roll the three together into one agreement (Non disclose, Non compete, and IP assignment).

      It does suck tho.

      --
      tora
    4. Re:Rewrite them, Don't accept the boilerplate by Tora · · Score: 1

      Yeah, on the IP assignment parts it's just my own text verbatim. On the clauses that are added they come from a more fair employment/work-for-hire agreement, I've had several attorneys work on. When I say nobody reads it, I mean I never get back a countersigned copy until I ask for it. But I ask for it, and then I get it--usually by the CEO or other exec level person (working in smaller orgs).

      --
      tora
  24. Capitalism is slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The workers are the slaves of the bourgeois class in general.
    You can choose which bourgeois as your master, but you can't choose not to have a master.

    1. Re: Capitalism is slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's the typical loser give-up attitude that Marxists define their existence with, but we all know what they're really after: Trading their manager/supervisor for a dictator. Every. Single. Time.

      https://youtu.be/tPc6qaEQ600?t=8

      Even Marx himself wasn't shy to admit that he wanted to overthrow democracy and terrorize the people until he alone determines when they've fully seen the world through his eyes and have bent to his will. Where else do you think the USSR got their playbook?

  25. Re:I, too, once worked for another by Solandri · · Score: 1

    Glad it worked out for you. A friend of mine is a contrasting example. He runs a rural hotel and and noticed that most of his business was on weekends, so during the week he had a lot of empty rooms and couldn't give his staff as many work hours. So he came up with the idea of a weekday camp program - urban elementary schools would send a class to spend a week at his hotel. The children would go on guided hikes of the surrounding countryside and playing outdoor games, learning about animals, plants, and the environment. He discussed it with the schools and they loved the idea, he just needed a curriculum the schools could review and approve, and people to run the camp. So he hired a half dozen people to develop a program and run it.

    A year later, after he'd invested more than a half million dollars paying for materials and these people's wages to develop the program, it was complete. He just had to present it to the schools so they could sign up. Then overnight, all six of them quit. They left paper copies of the program he'd hired them to develop (teaching materials, curriculum, games, etc), so he spent a few months finding new staff to run it. After they were hired, he approached the schools and...

    That's when he learned that the original six employees had completely poached his idea. They'd taken the program he'd paid them to develop, rented a nearby camp facility, and were running it themselves. They'd also poached his list of contacts at the schools, and with a 3 month head start they had already signed up the schools most interested in the idea, leaving scraps for him. He never recovered financially, and his hotel was on the brink of bankruptcy for close to a decade. Last time I visited, it was horribly run down because after losing his original investment and without the expected new revenue, he had had to put off repairs and updates. Basically those six employees fleeced him out of a half million dollars in R&D costs.

    Yeah there are asshole companies who will abuse NCAs to grind employees under their heel. But there are also asshole employees who will steal whatever they can from the company without a NCA. Given that abuse can happen on both sides, I'm really not sure what the solution is.

  26. Re:I, too, once worked for another by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

    Wasting half million dollars on a project not related to his core business sounds like weird decision. He should have at least spun off those employees as a subsidiary and wrote all R&D costs as subsidiary's debts. That way even if they decided to go their own way they would still have to repay any costs incurred. NCA isn't the best solution really, properly organized subsidiary companies and well thought out contracts are.