Senators propose near-total ban on worker noncompete agreements
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
That is amazing. I was considering suggesting the same thing but it really sounded like pure fantasy and wishful thinking.
It is a reasonable compromise, since if the non-compete period is actually valuable to the company, they should pay for it.
Upvote
30
(30
/
0)
I've got 19 months left on a particularly toothy one now, and it's affecting my choice of job, as well as making it likely my next job will just be a holdover till I can go back to the industry of my choice. It's really nothing but a useless hassle -- I'm not taking trade secrets with me, as I didn't obtain any of them.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
That's a legitimate point, but it means you have a non-optimal hiring/incentives scheme. Rewards for the training need to come in over time and you need to be pickier about hiring (I know, easier said that done).
Besides, the people who just leave when the training is over aren't going to be dissuaded by a non-compete they signed. They were playing you and just don't care, and the odds that you would actually sue them is tiny.
Hell, even though I've worked at nearly every place I've worked at for over 7 years, and never joined intending to leave, I wouldn't be dissuaded by a non-compete I signed either, because I consider it an illegitimate one-sided application of force, like a EULA, brought up at the last minute after I'm already committed to the job and am signing final papers. Am I legally in the wrong? Yes. Would I feel bad about violating something written by $50M dollars worth of lawyering to screw me? No.
Upvote
30
(30
/
0)
That sounds like a problem with the company doing the training. If they are losing employees after those employees receive training, perhaps they should take a good long look at their working conditions and figure out why, and then perhaps offer salaries and working conditions that cause such employees to want to stay there rather than immediately move on.
I know I know, doing things to benefit employees rather than executives and shareholders is crazy talk in the US.
Upvote
45
(46
/
-1)
The proposed bill will go up here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... -bill/2614
The details such as cosponsors, text, etc., are not there as I write this but should be in a few days. The details will beimportant.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... -bill/2614
The details such as cosponsors, text, etc., are not there as I write this but should be in a few days. The details will beimportant.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
"Don't tell your new employer you signed one" has worked well for me. Do so at your own risk, your state's laws depending, of course. I've worked at some pretty well known companies over the years, both full-time and contract. I sure as fuck am not spilling the beans on trade secrets because that's career suicide, but I'll be goddamned if I'm letting non-competes derail my career without fighting tooth and nail against it if I have to.
Two seconds on Google finds this for NY State, where I live:
https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/non-competes.pdf
A non-compete is only allowed and enforceable to the extent it (1) is necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests, (2) does not impose an undue hardship on the employee, (3) does not harm the public, and (4) is reasonable in time period and geographic scope.
...
No law requires you to sign a non-compete, but an employer is allowed to require you to sign a non-compete before or after you start work. Employees can easily overlook the terms of a noncompete if they are told they must sign it just to be hired or to continue employment. In doing so, employees may unintentionally sign unenforceable non-competes.
Seeing as I'm not some money lich king who is angling to have most of the US reduced to neo-serfdom, which I think most of these companies want, I think it'd be for the best if we just banned them. No second guessing "would this be considered an undue hardship or not if shit hits the fan later in my career?", worrying about potential litigation, and so forth.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
FWIW, this sort of overreach is the kind of thing that turns a potentially enforceable non-compete in an illegal agreement in most states. (Still has a chilling effect though.)
Well lawyered non-competes are usually pretty narrowly targeted.
Upvote
25
(25
/
0)
I believe you are looking at things from the wrong direction. Nobody is saying that you as an employee should have to disclose your wages to others, or that a company has to make that information public. If asked, you are well within your rights to not comment on your personal wage to mostly anyone. The point is that should employees wish to share that information with each other, the company cannot punish you.
Imagine you are the most senior on your team, but find out that new hires are getting brought on above your pay rate due to changing market conditions. You raise this point with your manager as you ask for a salary adjustment, only to get punished/fired for having discussed salary information with other employees.
Upvote
33
(33
/
0)
So the one in particular i am specifically thinking of, they also force you to go through one specific court system in one specific state for all legal disputes that arbitration do not cover. I looked into that jurisdiction, the employee has no chance in those courts.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
If you open up uBlock Origin, and go to 'My Filters', the following filter will disable (at least, it does for me..) the filter in EasyList that kills the links. You get to keep the rest of the benefits of EasyList, with less of it screwing with arstech:
meincmagazine.com,arstechnica.co.uk#@#a[href^="https://www.amazon."][href*="tag="]
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
I'd love to see non competes have a dollar value attached. Similar to the H1B situation.
I don't have a problem with either system existing, but if it is that important then they should have to pay a minimum in compensation... that minimum being a great deal.
I don't have a problem with either system existing, but if it is that important then they should have to pay a minimum in compensation... that minimum being a great deal.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Photon_plumber
Ars Tribunus Militum
Patents generally protect against people messing with commercial products, existing or planned. Now some data or information can rightly be labeled 'proprietary' if it's of that nature.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Photon_plumber
Ars Tribunus Militum
Thank you! Non compete agreements say I can't work in the field I went to school for, and likely have a specialty in. How am I supposed to support myself if I'm banned from working in those areas?
Upvote
19
(20
/
-1)
I don't think they should be banned entirely, but I do think that 3x pay/salary for their enforcement period should be mandatory. 10% or less of the employees can be asked for the contract addendum and only if they are "highly compensated" by IRS rules. For a pay of $80K/yr if the company wants a 1 yr non-compete, then they'd have to pay $240K, assuming the other two limitations are met.
If you are paid $150K/yr, then $450K for a 1 yr non-compete seems very fair.
Non-compete contracts aren't for non-key employees. The law should address that limitation.
Many years ago, worked at a company sending 20+ employees to expensive Oracle DBA training. I wasn't in the group sent. The trainers seemed to be scouts for other companies seeking DBAs and at graduation, would recommend a significant number of the class grads to other companies. Over 50% at the company would leave, since we did govt, low-bid, DBA, programming, and systems integration contracting on that specific contract. Over 500 people worked on it at that facility. Soon, the company required a 1 yr commitment before sending anyone to DBA training. To get the training, you had to agree to stay.
If you are paid $150K/yr, then $450K for a 1 yr non-compete seems very fair.
Non-compete contracts aren't for non-key employees. The law should address that limitation.
Many years ago, worked at a company sending 20+ employees to expensive Oracle DBA training. I wasn't in the group sent. The trainers seemed to be scouts for other companies seeking DBAs and at graduation, would recommend a significant number of the class grads to other companies. Over 50% at the company would leave, since we did govt, low-bid, DBA, programming, and systems integration contracting on that specific contract. Over 500 people worked on it at that facility. Soon, the company required a 1 yr commitment before sending anyone to DBA training. To get the training, you had to agree to stay.
Upvote
5
(8
/
-3)
They were around long before the Valley was a thing. But they were generally used to prevent an employee from poaching clients and leaving.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Any workers out there who'd rather have companies invest in their training, instead of paying adequate salaries (which they'll be forced to do without non-compete) and letting workers decide how to train themselves?
Anyone?
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
To deal with this possibility, places I have worked had a clause that you had a pay back any training you took within a certain window from when you resign.
I can think of several reasons for Non-competes...but all of them have other potential solutions and seem less likely to be abused by the employer.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
I don't have a non-compete where I work now but if I did, I would keep any good ideas to myself.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
At least in Australia, any term like that would be laughed out of court. Depending on how egregious the company was in trying to enforce it, the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) would likely be seriously interested in having a word with the company as well.
It's completely unenforceable here, in other words, except insofar as the company manages to bluff the employee. Which is most of the point of having such clauses.
The only way they'd have a chance of enforcing that clause is if they paid the employee in question after their employment ceased, to at least the tune of the employee's old salary, for the entire duration of the non-compete clause. Even then it would be dubious at best. (Note: I am not a lawyer; seek legal advice if you are in such a position.)
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
This is easily solved without a non-compete contract. Agree to reimburse the company for the training (time away from work, T&E, and the class itself) in an amount that is prorated appropriately. For example, CCIE that may have spent 120 hours of billable time studying and taking tests, plus the cost of travel to the lab, etc... may have 2 years to be fully vested.
A CCNA or other professional cert may only be worth 3 - 6 months.
A non-compete is not the answer to churn. An employee that wants to leave and finds another place to hire them - could easily negotiate a hiring bonus or one time compensation to pay back the training. That's a win win for both sides.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
I'm NY that's the case, but thatv doesn't include the bonus (which can be 30-50%) or benefits like health insurance. That gets painful quickly.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
They not only don't help, they actively hurt the economy. See all that venture capital sloshing around CA? That mostly goes to people competing with their former employers. And though companies like the non-competes, at the same time they move to CA so they can poach workers off of other companies. That's how the place works.
And California is often accused of being socialist, but the whole premise behind capitalism is that competition leads to better results. Non-competes are fundamentally anti-capitalistic. California is extremely capitalistic, we're just not very good at protecting large incumbents, which is what most so-called 'capitalists' embrace.
Upvote
30
(30
/
0)
Companies Enjoy Non-Compete to keep wages low.
By removing non compete suddenly companies need to start paying workers what they are worth or risk losing them to other companies willing to pay for their skills.
But there are still many issues after this that need resolutions
Forced Arbitration for both customers and employees
In house handling of sexual abuse claims ( rampant in Military, office, colleges \ universities )
Hyper efficiency standards for labor work ( amazon fulfillment centers and factories )
But this is a good first step in the right direction.
By removing non compete suddenly companies need to start paying workers what they are worth or risk losing them to other companies willing to pay for their skills.
But there are still many issues after this that need resolutions
Forced Arbitration for both customers and employees
In house handling of sexual abuse claims ( rampant in Military, office, colleges \ universities )
Hyper efficiency standards for labor work ( amazon fulfillment centers and factories )
But this is a good first step in the right direction.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Even though CA doesn't recognize non-competes, we still do recognize trade secrets. You can enforce trade secret sharing without non-competes - just look at Anthony Levandowski. Both Google and Uber are CA companies.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
I can see it for an engineer, as after a short while you have a lot of proprietary information in your skull, but places like Jimmy John's have it for their delivery drivers. That's insane. That is definitely an instance where it limits worker mobility, and allows them to keep their wage growth lower, because they scare their workers into not leaving, instead of enticing them to stay by providing a quality work environment and fair pay.
Upvote
2
(4
/
-2)
These provisions aren’t bullet proof either. Particularly if there isn’t a good logical reason for the forum.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
At least here in Argentina, an employer can put whatever it wants in a contract. The employer may even try to go to a court, then at the courthouse, they get slammed and thrown out, the reason is, you have a constitutional right to chose who you work for, and no contract among private parties can go over it. You can't waive your constituional right.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I agree, but IANAL. I just opted to not take the job vs flying halfway across the country to try to fight it in a court where i have a nonzero chance of losing, should it come to that. Was the saner move.
Edit: spelling is hard
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Five, ten years ago, that was a no-go. You pretty much sucked it up and signed the damn things because you needed a job (US). Now, companies can't find good candidates (at least in IT, and I've heard this at conventions and group meetings galore this year) and are suddenly on the opposite side of the coin. Now people COULD hold out or skip an employer's non-compete completely. It can even be part of the signing deal, "No non-compete, please".
You got downvoted, but I feel you're definitely on to something.
EDIT: Non-compete, not NDA... doofus...
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
That's the problem with non compete clauses though. They fundamentally aren't about intellectual property. There are already laws that protect an employer's intellectual property and there are typically already separate intellectual property clauses in employment contracts to double down on that.
If I create something for a company as the course of my employment my employer owns that as their intellectual property. I cannot take the code or other tangible assets related to that thing with me when I leave. That is my employer's intellectual property. Arguably I also cannot take the exact architecture or design with me either.
The farther I get from the exact implementation though the harder it is for my former employer to claim something I do in the future is their intellectual property. This is with good reason. A company can own what you create for them, but they cannot own your knowledge or your skills. I can't forget my general domain knowledge of my industry and my former employer can't own that knowledge. If I apply that experience and knowledge down the road in a wholely new endeavor, the new creation is my (or my new employer's) intellectual property.
This would be like the rights holder of a musician's back catalog of music suing them because their new music stylistically resembles their old music. Well of course it does, it's created using the artist's previous experience, but it is still a wholly new piece of work.
That's what the purpose of a non compete agreement is for, to force someone to not utilize their skills and knowledge to the benefit of themselves or others after the end of their employment. If a company can't own your future work then they don't want anyone else to own it either, because they already own your previous work.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Just want to comment on the bolded part. That definitely happens. The most famous case is John Fogerty being sued for sounding too much like himself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty_v._Fantasy,_Inc.#Facts
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
This is the only legitimate reason I can think of for a non-compete. At a previous gig as an IT consultant, we had several employees use our firm to get a foot in the door with clients and then poach them. The owner didn't bother trying to enforce the agreement, and eventually got the clients back because they eventually found out these employees were duplicitous.
That being said, a lot of companies use these things to intimidate employees into staying and as an excuse to withhold raises. I agree this useage should be outlawed.
Also, there seems to be a lot of confusion about intellectual property and non-competes. As a previous commentor mentioned, an NDA is what protects intellectual property, not a non-compete.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I've always seemed to successful negotiated the scope of my non competes to be very specific to the area I am working on at the company and not too broad, this has allowed me to move "diagonally" with my career with ease, and actually encouraged me into related areas that aided my career growth. Of course no non-compete would have been better.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
It can be quite damaging for business in the hands of unscrupulous people.
I can tell you about a software company I used to work for. After they lost several key sales members to the competition, their clients would start receiving suspiciously competitive offers right when their licences were about to expire.
Upvote
-4
(0
/
-4)
The problem with these non-compete clauses in employment contracts is they trample on a person's basic right to seek gainful employment from the highest bidder.
That's not to say you should be able to get away with providing access to trade secrets from previous employers. It just means that you should never decide not to apply for a job because of the non-compete cause in your existing contract.
That's not to say you should be able to get away with providing access to trade secrets from previous employers. It just means that you should never decide not to apply for a job because of the non-compete cause in your existing contract.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I was in a review and my direct supervisor was telling me how the plant manager was holding onto my overall pay raise info sheet, because too many people were discussing wages. And how at her former place, they would fire if you discussed wages and basically you're an asshole if you talk about them.
I'm screaming in my head -thats illegal as fuck- but say nothing. Quickly did the google search for the law, 90 years old.
The last few years of dealing with kind of shit and 45s shitshow are why I've no problem going full socialist. Fuck these assholes trying everything they can to screw over labor.
Upvote
15
(16
/
-1)