Slashdot Mirror
Too Many Workers Are Trapped By Non-Competes (bloomberg.com)
Why have wages been so slow to rise at a time when demand for workers has pushed the U.S. unemployment rate to its lowest point in nearly half a century? One answer: contracts that tie millions of unspecialized workers to their jobs. Bloomberg reports: In far too many cases, these so-called noncompetes are an unwarranted restriction on freedom to transact and a drag on growth. If Congress won't act to narrow their scope, states should take the lead. The desire to keep workers from defecting to rival employers is as old as employment itself. As far back as the 15th century, English masters, such as dyers or blacksmiths, made apprentices promise not to set up shop nearby. Courts often refused to uphold such agreements, viewing them as coercive. As a House of Lords decision put it in 1893, "There is obviously more freedom of contract between buyer and seller than between master and servant or between an employer and a person seeking employment."
More than a century later, the idea is back in vogue, as companies exploit the power that comes with increasing size and market concentration. In the U.S., new employees are commonly required to sign contracts that forbid them to work in the same industry for a given period. The practice makes sense for highly paid jobs involving big investments in training, and for staff with valuable proprietary knowledge. But it isn't being limited to those kinds of employees. A 2014 survey found that about two in five workers were or had at some point been bound in this way, including workers such as security guards and camp counselors. Some 12 percent of employees without a bachelor's degree and earning less than $40,000 a year were tied down.
More than a century later, the idea is back in vogue, as companies exploit the power that comes with increasing size and market concentration. In the U.S., new employees are commonly required to sign contracts that forbid them to work in the same industry for a given period. The practice makes sense for highly paid jobs involving big investments in training, and for staff with valuable proprietary knowledge. But it isn't being limited to those kinds of employees. A 2014 survey found that about two in five workers were or had at some point been bound in this way, including workers such as security guards and camp counselors. Some 12 percent of employees without a bachelor's degree and earning less than $40,000 a year were tied down.
Non competes are hardly enforceable. It might be a legal battle if you are a CEO that ran off with trade secrets to start a new company, but a guy making 40k? Please, no one gives a fuck what you do, they only wrote it in the contract because people fall for it.
That is actually how it is done in Europe ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And that, friends, is a very good example of why you should not get legal advice from /..
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Come to California, where it's always sunny, and non-competes are laughed at by the courts.
Am I "one appointed by another to act in his place"? No. Well, I've appointed myself to read, write, and enforce contracts between my business, it's suppliers, and it's clients.
Ask a legal litigator (like my beloved), and they'll tell you that most of my contracts would never hold up in a courtroom.
Ask any small business owner, and you'll learn that business agreements aren't required to hold up in a courtroom. They'll never see a courtroom because fighting in a courtroom is more expensive than anything the other side wants. Instead, such agreements are meant to formalize what the two parties have already agreed.
I've been in-business for 25 years. I've written close to 100 agreements, and signed well over 100. I've never seen a courtroom. Only two relationships have gone sour, for a total of ~$3'000 that I've refunded. That's factored under close to three million dollars of revenue. So that's 0.1%.
I, and you too, would call that incredibly successful.
Incidentally, one of my tricks is to write such agreements in as much past-tense as is possible to make true. The more of the responsibilities that you can enact ahead of signing the agreement, the most stable the agreement is.
Granted, and certainly caveats, I'm not in an industry where lives can be lost, gross sums of money can vanish, or clients engage in criminal behaviour. Obviously those kinds of liabilities might depend on a legal system to contain them. I'm also not a large company responsible for a large number of employees.
I'm trapped by our healthcare system. With the ACA under attack I can't risk leaving, and even is I could I'd be without healthcare for the 90 to 180 days most jobs make you wait for benefits. I'm not saying noncompetes don't suck, but I've got bigger fish to fry.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
In general, non-competes for non-executive employees are not enforceable. I can't think of a single case where a noncompete against a developer has been upheld in court.
Oh, how wrong. I got sued over a non-compete and where it never went to court, just paying the legal fees alone about bankrupted me. They ARE enforceable in some jurisdictions if they are properly written and even if you think it would be stupid to sue over, that doesn't mean your former employer sees it the same way. My advice to you is to pay a LAWYER for advice if you intend to break a non-compete, no matter where you live or how bad the agreement seems. Understand what you are risking in your jurisdiction and don't take legal advice from Google or Slashdot posts, get a lawyer and pay them, then follow their advice.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
And California! Non-competes were critical to the development of silicon valley, making California one of the largest economic powerhouses in the world.
This isn't bullshit. It's been studied.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/10/27/california-got-it-right-ban-the-non-compete-agreements/#4f3900243538
Massachusetts strangled it's fledgling tech industry in the cradle with noncompetes.
https://law.stanford.edu/index.php?webauth-document=publication/256234/doc/slspublic/NYULawReview-74-3-Gilson.pdf
Non-competes have nothing to do with "right to work" laws. Right to work simply makes employer/employee relationships "at will" for both sides. It also means that the employee cannot be forced to be a union member as a condition of employment. Non-compete agreements are not affected by any right to work laws that I know of.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I have seen legal departments refuse to accept any changes in contracts or agreements. When a company reaches a certain size then it takes on a life of its own and it becomes too difficult to get approval to modify a boilerplate agreement. Even when approval is granted it requires going to up to the most senior management.