
Idaho has made it easier for companies to enforce noncompete agreements - iamjeff
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/business/economy/boise-idaho-noncompete-law.html
======
Clubber
So for new tech people getting started in their careers, make sure you save up
4-6 months of income so you don't have to put up with this garbage. They say
money is power, but before that, it's freedom.

Don't allow yourself to be pushed around. If you aren't strong enough mentally
yet to do it for yourself, do it for the other people in the field who aren't
strong enough.

If they offer to pay you to train your replacement, tell them to pound sand
and walk out. Be prepared financially.

If they try to force you to sign a non-compete, be willing to walk away until
they make it fair and reasonable.

If they try to get you to sign away all your IP, tell them no.

Companies don't expect you to read that contract you are signing, and most of
them just pull a boilerplate contract off the internet. Almost all of them are
grossly one sided to the company. This includes taking ownership of anything
you've developed in the past on your own.

All of this is easy if you have 4-6 months of income saved up. You are in high
demand; companies will wither on the vine without good, efficient systems
running them. Now, but even more so in the future.

~~~
brightball
I still don't understand the almost violent resistance to noncompetes. If they
are "you can't work otherwise" then sure... it if it's literally that you
can't go work for a direct competitor or take their clients to start your own
I don't see the issue. That's more a matter of ethics than anything else and
seems perfectly reasonable for a limited period of time (6 months to a year).

~~~
KirinDave
I really suspect you don't understand how broad tech-noncompetes are.

Given the court and arbitrator's lack of expertise, we see companies arguing
that any software work at all is competition. Especially for emrging high-
demand fields like machine learning.

~~~
Consultant32452
Is this happening a lot in the tech world? I don't mean an anecdote here and
there. I did some quick google searches and it seems like non-competes are
usually enforced against people in sales/marketing of some sort, taking their
client list with them. That seems like a completely reasonable enforcement.
The instances that make headlines in the tech world are the ones where Uber
may have intentionally stolen Google tech, or at least the employee
intentionally brought Google tech with them to Uber. Again, completely
reasonable.

~~~
KirinDave
Yes. It happens to anyone who doesn't move to California. You can Google for
stories on it.

~~~
Consultant32452
I didn't move to California and it's never happened to me or anyone I know. I
did Google for stories on it and I couldn't find any stats. Do you have any?

~~~
KirinDave
Many Microsoft Employees. Maybe try googling.

But there is also a larger question of why we allow them at all. They seem
unconscionable in any industry. They're roughly akin to suggesting that if you
train someone you own rights to their training.

~~~
Consultant32452
That's really not helpful. How many is "many?" And how many of those "many"
would a reasonable person think is justified? The Uber case I mentioned
previously is something I think a reasonable person would find justified. Is
MSFT a bad actor or is this an industry-wide problem?

~~~
KirinDave
I spent 22 seconds more to Google this than then 45 seconds to type it in. I
picked the first link in a string of many abuses of nocompetes.

You will get no more of my time: [http://gawker.com/378444/did-you-sign-
googles-noncompete-goo...](http://gawker.com/378444/did-you-sign-googles-
noncompete-good-youre-fired)

~~~
Consultant32452
Again, how frequent/common is this in the industry? Articles with anecdotes
are completely unhelpful. How many lawsuits have been filed in the past 5
years by former employers over non-competes? How many times have those
employers won?

~~~
KirinDave
Again, "Consultant32452," you're mistaking our relationship. You're quite
welcome for the free information, but don't mistake my largesse for interest
in your conclusions or an obligation to help you.

You couldn't even say, "Please" or thank me for what I've offered you thus
far. Is common decency not part of the cultural consensus where you're from?

~~~
Consultant32452
You made a baseless claim. I took the time to find data to back up your
baseless claim, specifically stated I couldn't find any stats, and asked if
you had any. You then responded, twice, with anecdotes. Why would I thank you
if you weren't helpful? All you've done is spread baseless rumors which hurts
the community.

~~~
KirinDave
The reality of an easily verifiable situation is independent of your
understanding or agreement with it. I'm unconcerned about convincing you
because I've determined you're here in an anonymous capacity to defend no-
competes.

I can't really figure out why you would. They only benefit very large
organizations attempting to stifle competition and drive down skilled worker
wages. Smaller companies can't really afford to consistently enforce them and
lots of smaller companies use open moonlighting agreements and a lack of no-
compete as a selling point.

But I also don't care. I am not obligated to convince you. Nor am I obligated
to pay your little shufflepuck game that ultimately ends up with research
behind a paywall you will refuse to follow.

This story: your tactic. It's not new. It's old. I've seen it done before,
I've seen it executed better as well. There is nothing more telling than
looking at an obvious example of abuse sourced off a reputable news site and
saying, "But this is an _anecdote_ and I wanted _data_."

I am sure you will post protestations about how unfair this is. And it is,
somewhat. You bear the burden put upon all anonymous accounts before you. But
to be honest, given your complete refusal to even google something and count
the results makes me think you're actively defending this practice as opposed
to genuinely curious.

------
mattm
Non competes would be fine as long as the employer needs to provide
compensation for the duration of it after you've left. If an employer leaving
will really harm your business then you should be completely fine with paying
to avoid it.

~~~
matwood
Completely agree. I once worked for a large company that was purchased by
another large company. The new large company wanted everyone to sign non-
competes. I responded that I would only sign if they added that I would be
paid throughout the non-compete timeframe. Oddly enough, I never heard
anything else about it.

~~~
ghaff
On the other hand, I was once in the same position. (The acquiring company was
actually one of the most vocal backers of non-competes in their state over the
years.) It was made clear that we either signed or we'd be immediately
terminated.

I did sign. It was actually written narrowly enough that I didn't expect it
would be a problem. And it wasn't when I left fairly shortly thereafter.

------
fsloth
Sheesh, what a perverse view of operation of companies. Non competes are silly
beyond measure. I suppose the charitable view is that the legislators imagine
that the employers have some magic beans which no one else could have beyond
theft of the original beans.

In practice all this does is increase leverage of employers over employees
while stifling growth by discouraging cross insemination of ideas between
corporations.

The only winner is the employer who would fail to keep his employees through
offering a good workplace.

Serfs were legally bound to the land on which they worked but could not own.
Aren't non competes nothing but just a step towards serfdom?

~~~
logicallee
>Non competes are silly beyond measure.

Maybe. Maybe not. Here is a mental exercise for you.

Suppose that you meet a cofounder with a fantastic idea, that requires a
modest amount of research to work the kinks out of, and you bring almost zero
value to the equation other than having the vision to know that their idea is
great - and of course, your willingness to work 100 hours per week until
you're both rich off of it. They bring almost all of the value to the equation
and have a great resume and background and degrees in that field. You're a
code monkey or something. maybe you're a good one, but you certainly don't do
the work of fifty or a hundred engineers. maybe 3-5. sometimes. you're nothing
special.

so you enter into a contract with your partner under some terms, doesn't
really matter what. you're cofounders.

Now here is the question: what is the outcome for you if as you begin to prove
the technology together your cofounder gets a fantastic, amazing offer from a
huge mutibillion dollar company, for millions of dollars, to leave you, join
them, and compete with you. They don't want you, you don't add any value. Your
company doesn't have any assets or IP. They just want your cofounder to go
leave you and compete directly with the company you poured a lot of time into
together and co-own.

if your cofounder does that, then this is awful for you. you've just wasted
whatever time you spent working together as you don't bring all that much to
the equation. your company becomes non-viable.

So how do you avoid this? Well you can trust each other: you can straight-up
say at the start of the partnership, hey (cofounder's name), I know you bring
a lot more value to this venture than I do and I am honored that you are
letting me help you bring this to market. Before we enter our partnership,
will you PROMISE me that you are not just going to leave and start directly
competing with us?

Your cofounder says, sure, okay, I promise.

If they're a person of their word, this effectively solves the problem you had
been having.

The thing is, this is a non-compete agreement. That's literally what it is.
The legalities don't matter.

Do you guys think this agreement is "wrong"? After all your friend is severely
constrained and must refuse offers of millions of dollars to leave your joint
company and compete with you, if they keep their word....

I am not asking about whether courts should enforce these contracts. I'm
asking whether the agreement itself is something that is wrong to enter. Is it
wrong to ask for and receive that promise?

\-----

EDIT: Despite my very clear signposting, a lot of people are misinterpreting
this. I was asking what you all thought about the morality of such an
"extreme" example. I did not include any value judgment.

~~~
_delirium
Noncompetes that are tied to equity agremeents, rather than to employment
contracts, are different, and often enforceable even in California (subject to
various caveats, consult your lawyer, etc. etc.).

The paradigmatic case that California allows is: You own a restaurant that
builds up a good reputation. You agree to sell it, with a condition in the
sales terms that you won't open a competing restaurant within X miles for Y
years. In large part what the buyer is buying here is your existing reputation
and customer base, so you agree to a noncompete to facilitate selling these
intangible items, which are more valuable if the buyer doesn't have to worry
that you're going to sell the restaurant but then turn around and open a near-
identical one to try to keep the customer base.

~~~
logicallee
Can you add a value judgment for what you've stated? I did not include one in
my comment, and you answered in legal terms without including a value judgment
yourself. For example do you agree with the morality of your restaurant
example?

~~~
ghaff
Seems perfectly moral to me. It's conditions attached to the sale of a
business and I would assume such clauses are pretty standard. If I sell a
consulting business to you, you'd be pretty crazy not to have some anti-
solicitation clause in the sale agreement.

If I did open up a competing restaurant next door as soon as the ink was dry
on the sale agreement, I think it would be on you and your lawyer not to have
covered that eventuality. (Though it would also be kind of sleazy of me IMO.)

------
ilovetux
Since we live in a supposedly free market where all these companies, both
incumbent and startup, found successful business plans why is it now necessary
to prop these companies up with new laws? Isn't it a part of the free market
that if your business is not able to compete then it should die. A little
cutthroat, but isn't that the dog eat dog world of business.

I am against placing the burden of proof on the employee. I am more so against
cementing these restrictions in laws. It would be ok with me to allow someone
to enter into whatever contract they want, but this feels like a continuation
the big bank bailouts and the auto bailouts just in miniature.

Don't we need less laws and more comprehensible contracts to create a more
level playing field. Can't we refactor the law instead of implementing these
"duct-tape" fixes which only restrict the liberties of hard-working, law-
abiding citizens?

------
Ccecil
I live and run a small business in North Idaho. This law was something I have
been a bit concerned about. I am not employed by anyone other than myself but
I am often contracted by companies to do odd jobs (repair/upgrade machines,
solve small issues, work on projects, etc). There have been quite a few NDAs
involved in the past which has always concerned me since there is an overlap
in what I do and what they do...but now the question is do I as a contractor
need to watch for this? Could a non compete slipped into a contract (in cases
of tech overlap) cause me issues in my own company? How liable am I as a
contractor? Or is this only in cases of employment?

I suppose this is one of those laws I really need to look into. NDA is one
thing...but being sued for doing what I already did as a company...or
contracting to another company (competitor with differing tech for instance)
would put me out of business.

There is a group of people who are putting a lot of work into driving the
startup scene to my area (Coeur d'Alene/Spokane) but I feel this may hinder
the companies...although...it might be beneficial for the people who are
actually folding the cash at the end of the day.

Any insight from those more experienced would be helpful.

edit: Not that it should matter. But my bread and butter comes from remote
open source/openhardware projects. The locals are the only ones who have ever
required an NDA.

~~~
ScottBurson
Sounds like you should talk to an attorney.

The ideal would be that you build up your business to the point that you can
either simply decline to sign NDAs, because you have plenty of customers who
don't ask you to, or at the very least can negotiate very specific NDA terms
that won't be a problem for you. But again, to do that, you'll probably need
some legal advice. The simplest thing is not to sign them at all.

------
scribu
Compare with indentured labour:

> An indentured servant or indentured labor is an employee (indenturee) within
> a system of unfree labor who is bound by a contract (indenture) to work for
> a particular employer for a fixed period.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude)

~~~
kasey_junk
So not at all the same? Look this is a stupid law that is bad for both
employers & employees in Idaho but it's not indentured servitude.

~~~
scribu
I didn't say they're identical, but they do seem similar in spirit.

Indentured servitude: you either obey the contract, or go to jail.

Non-compete: you either obey the contract, or go work in a different industry
(in effect, become poorer, since you have to start over).

~~~
tptacek
What contract related to employment can't you say that about?

------
moomin
Non-competes are a great example of why "pro-business" isn't the same as "pro-
capitalism" or "pro-economy". Making all your best qualified people
unemployable is a great way to ruin your country.

~~~
walshemj
And also explains why SV was successful the "liberal" approach in CA means the
workforce is more flexible

------
jmull
This seems short-sighted.

The question, "Do I even want to work in Idaho?" Has got to be raising itself
to employees and prospective employees already. Do you want to add another
reason to make the easy answer no?

Meanwhile, you're amassing a stockpile of unhappy employees who don't want to
be working for you but feel they have no choice. Do you really want to grow
the number of employees you have who are trying to do the minimum?

------
BeetleB
>While its economy is known for agriculture — potatoes are among the state’s
biggest exports — Idaho has a long history as a technology hub.

Nitpick, but: Idaho's largest component of the economy, as well as its largest
exports, is technology and not agriculture. It is more of a tech state than an
agricultural one.

(Sorry to all Idahoans who don't want this publicized!)

~~~
CydeWeys
Maybe not for much longer at this rate, though. They seem to be doing
everything possible to _kill_ their tech industry rather than grow it.
California indisputably has the best tech industry in the country and it also
has the most stringent regulations against non-competes; it really makes you
wonder what the legislators are even thinking if cultivating their tech
industry is something they actually killed about.

Also, Idaho is a Republican state, so you naively expect they'd be all rah-rah
free market and competition, but this appears to just be pro-big-business and
actually quite anti-competitive.

~~~
connorl33t
I live in Boise, and work at a software startup.

I _personally_ do not think this will have much of an effect on the "startup
scene" because the vast majority of the people working at companies that would
possibly enforce non-competes such as Micron or HP do not come to work at
"startups", because of performance on skills-tests or cultural fit.

I've met a lot of the leadership for various startups in the Treasure Valley,
and suing someone over changing employers would be the antithesis of the
values they hold, there is one exception I could think of - BlackBox VR (very
early stage) somebody leaving them for a competitor could be pretty bad!

I have met startups brag about losing employees to Amazon and Google though.

~~~
CydeWeys
I don't think that the startup tech companies and non-startup tech companies
are that different of a world. Something that negatively influences one in a
given area will negatively influence the other. And people do move between
them quite frequently (this has been my experience in DC and NYC at least, I
can't speak to Boise).

------
droithomme
Noncompetes are named accurately. They make an area much less competitive.

Idaho has only one meaningful tech company, and it's mentioned multiple times
in the article. Analysts say its overpriced and due for a fall. It's a company
that hasn't had much real innovation for a long time. Not surprising given
that it is headquartered in a anti-innovation state that no highly qualified
engineer in his right mind would move to due to the toxic legal environment
for technologists.

------
pmarreck
Article title is misleading. This article is solely about noncompete clauses
in employee contracts, while title makes it seem that Idaho employees are
subject to serfdom.

I fall on the side of "noncompete clauses are stupid." Provide a better job or
GTFO.

~~~
twobyfour
Don't non-compete clauses make employment a form of serfdom in a way?

~~~
ghaff
No. They actually don't. There are a number of limitations that companies may
put in employment agreements including non-solicitation, NDAs, etc. that most
people think are reasonable. The issue with non-competes is that many,
including myself, think they're a bridge too far absent appropriate agreed-to
compensation in most cases.

~~~
tcbawo
The burden of interpeting what defines competition usually falls on the
courts. Most cases are favorable to a former employee when their livelihood is
at stake.

~~~
ghaff
That may (or may not) be true. But in my experience, at least some percentage
of people bound by non-competes elect to just be on the beach rather than
going the legal route. Some companies have a reputation for consistently
litigating these.

In addition, even if the employee/ex-employee is willing to risk it, lots of
potential new employers aren't. I worked for a small firm for a number of
years and we wouldn't even entertain having discussions with someone if they
were bound by any remotely relevant non-compete.

------
chipgap98
With laws like these, I don't understand why anyone would take a job in Idaho.
It seems like you're just setting yourself up for a bad situation

~~~
skrap
I can think of a bunch of reasons why one might end up in such a situation,
all of which point to systemic failures to protect the free movement of
people:

1) Unfamiliarity with the law. People moving from states which protect the
marketplace for employment from non-compete abuse (e.g. California) may not
realize that such "agreements" even exist. I didn't, and was pretty surprised
by them when I left CA after 7 years in SV.

2) Being required to sign a non-compete _after_ you've already begun the job,
which is (AFAIK) legal many places, though I don't know about Idaho.

3) Asymmetric power in the "agreement", especially when larger employers (with
legal departments) are involved. The scare quotes are there because the
parties agreeing to the contract are not negotiating from comparable positions
of strength, so I think the word "agreement" is a post-truth-type word.

IMO, a free market won't remain free without public policy support. I guess
Idaho prefers a different sort of arrangement. That's their choice. Welcome to
my personal blacklist, Idaho.

~~~
slaymaker1907
It's often not legal to require it after the fact as a requirement for
continued employment since it is not a valid contract unless both parties
receive something of value. I believe this is termed as consideration in
contract law.

~~~
skrap
I believe in this case that "continued employment" is considered to be the
benefit derived by the employee. Meaning "sign this or we will terminate you"
is basically an ok thing to say, at least in some states.

------
TYPE_FASTER
I've also been seeing more contracts with indemnity clauses that make no sense
given the size of the contract. I'm a single individual working on a contract
under $10k, no I will not be financially responsible for anything negative
that happens. Every time so far, I've redlined that section and said it does
not apply, and it has been removed.

------
anigbrowl
I'm not a big fans of unions as they currently exist, but this is a good
example of why tech people should organize into _some_ sort of collective
structure so as to equalize their bargaining power. At the end of the day,
you're just disposable labor that will be disadvantaged at any opportunity for
the sake of profit.

------
csdreamer7
For those of you who say just walk away. Alot of people lack confidence in
themselves when they start out. Alot of people are really ignorant, even in
the compsci space. A non-compete harms everyone as a restrain of trade.
Parents really do not educate their kids on what to watch out for-often alot
of parents just do not care about kids. Schools do not, either because of a
lack of classroom time or large employers lobby the state against it.

Banning predatory provisions, especially non-competes, as California
demonstrates, really helps develop the economy.

------
tankerdude
Also known as: Idaho's brain drain as tech workers vote with their wallet and
brains to move to a friendlier state.

------
crb002
Blanket non-competes are asnine. You lock in unproductive workers who are
unhappy and want to leave.

------
kafkaesq
And hence, greatly deter people from the idea of pulling up tent stakes +
moving there to start a new life.

------
bnolsen
Non competes can't normally be enforced unless the company specifially
compensates you for the non compete. Punishing someone by not allowing them to
be able to make a living is unjust and unfair.

~~~
Per_Bothner
Unfortunately not necessarily true - depends on the jurisdiction. Did you read
the article?

------
tyingq
Peripheral, but I found it funny that a salesperson would get _" Trust No
One"_ tattooed on themselves in a place where clients could read it while she
talks with them.

~~~
urethrafranklin
You can take the woman out of Queens...

