
White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers - petethomas
http://reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSKCN12P2YP
======
tristor
I don't understand why there's so many people in the comments defending non-
competes. They have literally no value to society, or to individual employees.
They are a tool of restrictive coercion to stifle an employees freedom of
movement in the job market.

Trade secrets, IP, secret sauce: covered by NDA and IP assignment agreements

Client lists, contract terms, sales strategies, reported metrics, financials:
covered by NDA and in some cases SEC regulations about insider trading.

Etc.

The only thing a non-compete does is say that Employee A cannot work in their
chosen field for some period of time after they are fired or quit. In doing so
it offers no consideration or compensation typically in the contract.

So your employer underpays you by 40% and treats you badly? You want to leave
for greener pastures at that hip new startup that offered you a Senior
Engineer gig? Well, sorry to say you have a mortgage, a wife, and 2 kids and
that non-compete says you are only legally allowed to be a burger flipper for
two years after quitting, that software engineering is verboten.

Totally fair right?

If you don't sit on the board of a Fortune 500 company, you have literally no
incentive to support non-competes. There is no rational basis to argue in
their favor. Please learn the difference between NDAs, IP assignment
agreements, and non-competes before lending non-competes some mystical powers
they don't have.

~~~
tjic
> I don't understand why there's so many people in the comments defending non-
> competes. They have literally no value to society, or to individual
> employees.

To go meta for a moment: I think that this sort of statement exposes a flaw
that many of us have in debates. It's related to the "argument from ignorance"
fallacy, but is not exactly the same thing.

I take it as one of my priors that people at news.yc are intelligence.

When lots of intelligent people argue for X, and X makes no sense at all for
you, you should ponder with some real seriousness that perhaps N intelligent
people are not insane, but, instead, you are missing something.

In this case, you say "They have literally no value to society".

This is not an argument. This is a conclusion, or an axiom.

Let me explain why I think non-competes are a good thing:

1) deontological: freedom to contract is always a good thing. It is a human
right, and government has no legitimate moral power to remove that right from
people.

2) Hayekian / information theoretic: I have local knowledge regarding both my
costs and my benefits from signing a non-compete contract. Government
legislators and bureaucrats, at some great remove, has almost no knowledge of
either my costs or benefits.

3) pragmatic (overlaps #2): perhaps I am desperate to break into career field
X and would pay almost anything to get in. Or perhaps my skills are much lower
than other competitors. What can I offer employers that my peers can not? My
willingness to sign a non-compete. Or perhaps I know that I will be moving in
three years, and thus a geographic non-compete has no downside to me. Etc.

> you have literally no incentive to support non-competes...There is no
> rational basis...mystic powers

Your entire approach here is quite arrogant.

Consider, for a moment, that the other people on news.yc are not idiots.

~~~
nothrabannosir
_1) deontological: freedom to contract is always a good thing. It is a human
right, and government has no legitimate moral power to remove that right from
people._

That's not a strong argument either. You could substitute "contract" with
anything. I say this as a staunch libertarian. Government restrictions aren't
bad because "government", but because restrictions.

The free market works best when government restricts the freedom to restrict
freedom. That's why cartels being illegal is good (they restrict competition),
bans on insider trading are good (they restrict fair competition), etc. Non-
compete restricts the freedom on the labor markets.

If you let people do anything they want because freedom, you don't actually
get freedom.

~~~
otoburb
>>[...] restricts the freedom to restrict freedom [...]

That's a great turn of phrase. I'll try to use it the next time somebody asks
me to summarize the GPL, which has similar restrictions built in as per
Stallman's original intent.

~~~
wruza
RMS always cared about software freedom, not human's.

~~~
mcv
He cares about the end user's freedom. Not about the intermediary developer's
freedom to restrict the end user's freedom.

------
Animats
Note that this is being proposed as something states should do. Federal
legislation is not being proposed. Worst case would be Federal legislation
which was weak and pre-empted state legislation, weakening California's ban.

California employment law prohibits non-compete agreements for employees, and
has since 1872. California also prohibits any employee agreement which claims
employer ownership of intellectual property developed on the employee's own
time.[1] This is one reason Silicon Valley is so successful.

[1] [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=lab&gr...](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=02001-03000&file=2870-2872)

~~~
ekianjo
> California also prohibits any employee agreement which claims employer
> ownership of intellectual property developed on the employee's own time

I have always wondered how could such a claim on ownership could exist in the
first place. This reduces the employee to a mere company slave.

~~~
cgag
I also don't understand how using company property justifies ownership of
intellectual work. What about using a company pencil should give you the right
to any sketches I produce with it?

~~~
dagss
When the company purchases equipment for use by you-as-employee, and you use
that equipment for your own company spare time, how is that fair?

A pencil is so cheap and undetectable that it makes a poor example, but if you
stole my paint and painted a picture I would expect some compensation?

~~~
distances
Up to the value of the paint only. If Leonardo had painted Mona Lisa with
stolen colours, no-one would expect the painting itself to be ownership of the
paint merchant.

~~~
dagss
However everything the company does is seen in terms of investment... you
invest in machinery and employees so that you can get _more_ back than what
you put in.

When you loan from VCs, you can't tell them "you only get back what I loaned".
They want a cut of the result.

If you borrow something from the company for your own use, you are in a very
real way making use of their investment. Since assumption is you didn't ask,
why do you assume they want to give a bank-kind loan, not a VC-kind loan? (In
fact, what we are discussing here are employee contracts where it is
stipulated that such loans are of the VC variety... If you want to borrow
under other terms, make a contract for it...)

------
drawkbox
Non-competes, the most anti-innovation, anti-skilled worker, anti-free market,
anti-business and anti-American thing in working today. Non-competes are
protectionism for larger businesses over small/medium businesses.

As a freelancer, contractor and self-employed business owner/worker, please
make these illegal, tired of these.

The worst part about non-competes is they are blanket protectionism usually
and up to 2+ years of non-compete, this sometimes happens on a job that is
only 1-3 months. You have to laugh at those types of situations. Usually the
client will push them aside or lower the time to the job plus some time, but
both non-competes and arbitration agreements are horrible for workers in
today's economy where people change jobs frequently and many are self-
employed/freelancing/contracting.

The non-compete should not exist, at the core removing competition from
skilled workers in our economy is bad all around, unless you are one of the
current big fish.

~~~
jomamaxx
From your comments I gather you might not understand the problem.

Were Soft Engs simply to do 'work' then you would be absolutely right.

But in a world of IP ... it's a different story.

Company ABC brings you in, trains you on their know-how and core IP, which
took a lot of struggle, $, and R&D to create - then you leave, go to a
competitor, and effectively communicate and give away ABC Corps. most valuable
asset.

Non-competes can certainly applied far too aggressively, esp. in situations
where there is not merit ... but there are definitely cases wherein I think it
does make sense.

I'm thinking companies like DWAVE in Vancouver that built the 'first'
qubit/quantum computer. The guy spent his whole life developing that tech.
It's feasible that Google just grabs up some of the team and internalizes all
that work and effort for the price of a few headcount.

It's a real problem in some cases, but worse - very difficult to parameterize.

~~~
elmigranto
On the other hand, you work at a company for most of your professional life,
and become an expert in a field you love. One day you are no longer employed
for some reason, but due to non-compete there is no way to get a job you want,
since your expertise is somewhat niche. So you are forced to build websites or
sell coffee for two years. Or drop your life in US and work some other place.

If the person from your quantum computer example gets fired with non-compete,
it would mean being forced out of he field with 100% certainty. Quite a
leverage for a company.

In my opinion, there is still enough stuff out there benefiting corps over
employees even if non-competes go away.

~~~
sjg007
Take the job and let them sue. Scotus won't enforce a noncompete.

~~~
greglindahl
Non-competes are successfully enforced (outside CA) all of the time. Just take
a look at the tech press, there are quite a few articles about it.

~~~
codeonfire
Non-compete lawsuits are typically only worth it for VP level people who have
strategic secrets. No one cares about or sues 99.9% of workers who go work
somewhere else.

~~~
greglindahl
I agree that when it hits the news it's generally a lawsuit against a VP, but
you have no idea how many times lawyers send nasty letters, which are pretty
effective.

~~~
codeonfire
Yep, letters cost almost nothing to send. Almost all employees have nothing to
worry about for one reason. The corp will not go ahead with a lawsuit because
the employee will almost always have no money or assets to take. It's amazing
how pathological corporate behavior becomes when one views it from the money
perspective.

~~~
ghaff
But there's a chilling effect. For lots of potential employers, the existence
of a non-compete that might be litigated is a complete non-starter. I worked
for a small company and I know for a fact we passed on at least one person who
had a non-compete that was unlikely to be litigated but it just wasn't worth
the risk.

------
neogodless
I'm not sure if you came here for anecdotes, but my very first full time web
developer position had a non-compete clause. After 2.5 years, I moved to a new
company about 15 miles away for a roughly 20% raise. Some time into this job,
I ended up doing some work for a client that had left my previous employer. I
reached out to the previous employer because I needed something changed on the
server (they still managed hosting) - this tipped them off that I was (gasp)
_doing work for one of their previous clients_. They ended up attempting to
sue me and my new employer based on the non-compete! We went to a disposition,
but then the lawyers huddled, and the end result was that the non-compete was
reduced from 5 Years (!!) to just 1 year, and that we agreed I wouldn't do
work _on that specific client_ for the duration. Otherwise, there was no
penalty or fallout. I consider it a big dramatic show with no benefit to the
previous employer; they stomped their feet and pouted, the end.

Depending on the phrasing of the non-compete, I tend to cross that section
out, initial them, and then include a note when I submit them to my employer.
Most are fine with that change.

~~~
aaronchall
Yeah, I think that's what I'm going to do going forward. If there's a non-
compete in an otherwise viable contract, I'm going to strike it, sign, and if
it's of real value to them and they still want me, they can pay me to agree to
it.

------
dmourati
Massachusetts has realized that its current legislation allowing for non-
competes sniffles innovation.

[https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/silicon-valley-keeps-
winni...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/silicon-valley-keeps-winning-
because-non-competes-limit-innovation/)

[http://news.wgbh.org/2016/06/29/politics-government/deleo-
pl...](http://news.wgbh.org/2016/06/29/politics-government/deleo-pleases-both-
sides-business-approved-noncompete-bill)

~~~
pinot
In 2013 I turned down a job in Philadelphia, with a company who was
headquartered in Boston. They wanted me to sign a 1yr non-compete with the
stipulation that I wouldn't work for a company sold similar products within a
+/\- 30% wholesale cost of their product. After two trans-continental flights,
interviews etc, I said no because of the NC. The recruiter flipped over it. He
basically yelled at me "you're going to come work with us, we'll train you,
then you'll go somewhere else?"

No. I'm mid-career. I have skills you want. You're not training me. Your
company is not an engineering school. I'll leave because I might not like
working for you, or living where your company's office is. It's my life, not
yours.

Decided to stay in California where this wouldn't ever even be a question that
would come up.

~~~
dmourati
I'm glad you did that. It shows principle. You may have been able to negotiate
it out but the fact that they wanted it shows you a good deal about the
company character.

~~~
pinot
It was a privilege I had and exercised. I later found out that the company was
notorious for pursing violators of their NC, and sort of well-known about it
in my industry- which has companies from 1-person shops to multinationals, all
operating within the same price point (food and beverage). So the NC was
absolutely insane.

------
bahularora
Today, after completing almost a month of my trial at a new job, HR asked me
to sign a document on Stamp paper with a very vague 1 year non-compete clause.
All my objections to the same were casually shrugged of by her, by saying they
don't use it until I would directly hurt the revenue of the employer.

When I refused to sign it she said that it might be hard to offer me a job in
the case I don't sign it. Which very much sounded like a threat to me. If they
insist I would most probably sign it, as without the salary I wouldn't be able
to afford rent next month. According to her all the other employees have
signed it and none questioned her on it.

Notably non-competes are mostly illegal in India, still almost all agreements
I have come across have the clause mentioned in them. I don't understand the
point in having a clause like this, when its non-enforceable.

Many other points of the agreement were as egregious as the non-compete
clause. Also the whole agreement was extremely one sided. It also said all the
IP/Products/patents I develop, even in my own time, during my tenure would
belong by the employer.

~~~
falcolas
> It also said all the IP/Products/patents I develop, even in my own time,
> during my tenure would belong by the employer.

These clauses are getting worse too, claiming what you develop up to a year
after you leave the company. I had to sign one of these or not take the job,
non-negotiable. Not taking the job wasn't a choice at that time, sadly.

~~~
CaptSpify
This, to me, is the shadiest part of non-competes. I've only gotten one, but
it was after I had quit my previous job, and moved across the country. Am I
supposed to say no, now that I've already moved and have no other current
source of income for my family?

Shame on me for not asking up-front what I would have to sign, but also, how
is it legal to start throwing new contracts at someone, when they weren't part
of the original agreement in the first place.

~~~
bahularora
I am gonna try to change the management's mind about these policies. I am
hopeful that they would accept my request especially since these are not
enforceable in court and this would makes the whole agreement void.

Is it legal to have a extremely one sided agreement? Also if it is signed
under threat(no job/no livelihood) isn't it void, as its signed under duress?

------
aikah
I don't understand how these clauses are even legal at first place. It
violates the basic right of freedom of work. You can't have on one end freedom
of enterprise but on the other hand no freedom of work for employees. the
worst thing is the fact that these agreements usually come with 0
compensation.

~~~
telefonica
Completely agree. In the UK it's called garden leave: the employer pays you to
drink tea in your garden.

It's too easy for companies to claim losses from competing employees. They
need to put their $$$ where their mouth is

~~~
yomly
In the UK you're usually paid full salary though and garden leave is rarely
longer than 3 months iirc.

------
throw_away_777
Why can't congress do something about this? Non-competes are clearly terrible
for workers, and should at the least be illegal without a severance agreement.
If a company wants to keep me from working they should pay for the privilege.
Workers also need to start refusing to sign egregiously bad non-compete
agreements.

~~~
jomamaxx
"If a company wants to keep me from working they should pay for the
privilege."

They are paying you. You join the company on those terms. If you don't want to
join, then don't join.

What they don't want you dong is taking all their IP, walking off and passing
it onto a competitor.

It would be extremely naive to not understand that this happens all the time.

It's a tricky and nuanced problem, but it's real.

~~~
aikah
> What they don't want you dong is taking all their IP, walking off and
> passing it onto a competitor.

Bullshit, that's what NDAs are for.

~~~
jomamaxx
"Bullshit, that's what NDAs are for."

Totally false and completely naive.

Most knowledge and know-how is not explicit - they are often learned.

For example - suppose you worked at Nuance, and helped develop their new
AI/Neural Network speech recognition system. Everything you know about Speech
+ AI you learned from them, in that language specific setting.

If you went to work on Google's new Speech Recognition, which is AI-based - it
would basically be impossible not to pass on know how and relevant knowledge.
The application-specific skills are basically IP.

~~~
aikah
> For example - suppose you worked at Nuance, and helped develop their new
> AI/Neural Network speech recognition system. Everything you know about
> Speech + AI you learned from them, in that language specific setting.

And the knowledge and experience you got from your previous job before Nuance
? where does it come from ? why would the buck stop at Nuance ? or the former
company ? or the company before it ? your point is ridiculous. The knowledge I
acquire, if it doesn't involve a company's secret is my own and no company
owns it. There is no such thing as intellectual slavery which you basically
promote. If you don't pay me I owe nothing more than the respect of your
patents and other corporate secrets and those are covered by NDA.

~~~
dvtv75
Actually, that's a very interesting question - your prior knowledge in a
field, particularly if you've paid for your education, might become
significantly more valuable if a non-compete is implemented. Valuable enough
perhaps to refuse Nuance the right to use your work.

Of course, the counter-argument there is that they paid you for your work, and
that's why it's their property. It may follow that if the work is theirs and
you can't use it, then surely your student loan in its entirety would also be
their responsibility for just that reason.

Shame I have more important problems to solve in the meantime, that idea could
be quite fascinating to work through.

------
dsr_
I'm perfectly OK with a non-compete agreement... as long as it pays me for my
downtime.

You think the information in my head is so valuable that you don't want me
working for a competitor for three years after I leave? OK, pay me for three
years.

It's not worth _that_ much to you? Well, how much is it worth?

~~~
pzh
How would you determine the cost of your downtime?

If you're assuming that all you're going to do after you leave a company is
become a wage slave at another one, then getting paid the same wage for a few
years might be enough to compensate you. However, if you really aspire to
start your own company that might become hugely successful (e.g. the next
Facebook or Google), how would you be compensated for that?

The point is that even if you're paid for the time when the NDA is in force,
you are still being harmed, because your freedom to invest your time is
restricted.

~~~
biztos
Not to mention the opportunity cost for wage slaves.

If you're a programmer and are prevented from getting a new job right now,
when it's a seller's market for talent, then you might be in a much worse
situation in a year if the market changes.

Even getting 100% of your wage for that year could be a terrible deal.

------
ad_a
There's a coffee shop in our town that makes barristas sign a non-compete i.e.
no working at other coffee shops in town. This is beyond mind-blowingly
stupid.

~~~
zappo2938
Jimmy John's the sandwich shop made their employees sign non-compete contracts
too. [1]

[1] [http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-
compete...](http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compete-
clauses-following-settlement.html)

------
laichzeit0
I just signed one of these ridiculous clauses because pretty much everyone is
just slapping this into their contracts now.

Law needs to catch up on this one and fast. I like the idea of making non-
compete enforceable only if you can prove malicious intent. Similar to how tax
works. If onus is on the tax payer to prove that if you buy something and sell
it at profit you must prove that the _intention_ was not to turn a profit if
you want to pay capital gains tax and not income tax on the profit.

Except the burden on proof must be skewed in favor of the employee and the
proof of intent needs to sit with the employer if they want to enforce. E.g.
If I go to market and get an offer (say at some competitor), you have first
right of refusal to give me a counter. If you refuse to counter you cannot
enforce your non-compete. This is fair imho. Lots of problems regarding "trade
secrets" etc. but the law should be highly weighted towards the idea of
"innocent by until proven guilty" for the employee.

~~~
greglindahl
Move to California, or draw a line through it and see what happens.

------
losteverything
It is now standard for unskilled workers too as it is included in most job
application / offers.

A $12 / hr. part time Walmart worker can not work at another retailer or
online company or Amazon warehouse. The scope is defined by the company.

It is used as a threat.

Besides, if someone wants to steal company secrets they will regardless of a
signed paper.

In the '80s worked with a Chinese C/unix contractor that ported all code to
China. It was comm type work. No NDA would prevent a criminal.

------
joshAg
simple solution: all workers must be paid full salary and benefits for the
entire term of the non-compete agreement.

~~~
bkor
Law in Belgium allows an anti competition clause only in certain cases. When
it does apply, the employer still has to pay half of the salary for the length
of anti compete clause. There's still a limit on the length (12 months),
various limitations on when it applies, etc.

See [http://nl.workpocket.be/2/3/het-
concurrentiebeding/](http://nl.workpocket.be/2/3/het-concurrentiebeding/)

Netherlands also has various limitations on anti compete clauses. Generally,
they're not valid: [http://www.lbv.nl/actueel/wet-en-regelgeving/146-het-
concurr...](http://www.lbv.nl/actueel/wet-en-regelgeving/146-het-
concurrentiebeding). Since 2015 they only apply to full time employees and
there should be a very good business reason. Meaning: it should not apply to
everyone, at most a limited amount of people.

------
Steeeve
I've heard of two or three people in my lifetime that had a company try to
enforce a non-compete. Two were during a Microsoft/Google fight, and one was
in the late 60s with a scientist.

Has anybody around here been sued after leaving a company due to a non-compete
clause?

~~~
MrMullen
I have a good story on non-compete agreement!

I worked for a company based in New Mexico while I lived in California. When
we both got sick of each other, at the exit interview the HR personnel on the
phone from New Mexico told me I could not work in IT for the next 2 years as I
signed a non-compete agreement. I just started laughing at them and told them
I lived in California and good luck with enforcing that contract. End of
conversation and I was out in the parking lot 5 minutes later, still laughing.

------
hammock
This comes one week after - and in contrast to - Donald Trump promising in his
first 100 days in office a five-year ban on White House officials and
Congressman from becoming lobbyists, and a lifetime ban on White House
lobbyists from lobbying on behalf of foreign governments.

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/powerpost/wp/2016/10/17/trump-
proposes-five-year-ban-on-executive-branch-officials-and-lawmakers-who-want-
to-become-lobbyists/)

~~~
MrMullen
This, yet again, demonstrates that Trump does not understand how the US
Government works. The President does not make laws, Congress does. You think
the very people who signed up for a job so they can get rich later are really
going to pass a law that limits their ability to get rich later?

------
hak8or
This seems to explicitly not include workers who are privvy to trade secrets
based on a quick skim, so I guess all of us tech workers wouldn't have
anything changed sadly.

~~~
tedmiston
^ My thoughts exactly.

> The Obama administration on Tuesday also urged states to ban non-compete
> agreements that are not proposed before a job offer or promotion is accepted
> _and said employers should not be able to enforce the agreements when
> workers are laid off_.

It's unclear to me if the empathized part was meant to be a general statement,
so that could affect tech workers.

------
solotronics
IANAL but my understanding is that non-competes are essentially unenforceable
in Texas.

~~~
enraged_camel
I live in Texas and I'm interested to know if this is actually true. Asking
for a friend.

~~~
ahlatimer
I also live in Texas and recently signed a non-compete after talking to my
attorney.

The general gist is that, yes, they are enforceable. The legislature keeps
pushing for them, and the courts have, at various times, pushed back against
them. There are limitations on them, but you'd have to talk to an attorney to
figure out what they are -- I don't remember exactly what my attorney said. I
do know that my attorney said my fairly typical non-compete probably would
hold up in court.

While I signed this one, I've just flat out refused to sign them in the past.
People seem to have the idea that the employment agreement is set in stone.
For some companies it might be, but I've had some success pushing back against
clauses I didn't like.

~~~
driverdan
Why did you sign it? Why didn't you refuse this time?

~~~
ahlatimer
Because it was for a position where I felt it was more justified (cofounder),
as compared to a run of the mill developer or team lead position, which is
what I've been in the past and where I've refused to sign them.

------
Arcaten
What is most surprising to me about these stories today is how uncommon NDAs
are. I read somewhere that 20% of workers in the US have signed one.

I don't know if this is a common experience, but my employer recently began
putting NDAs in place and, in retrospect, I feel they took advantage of the
ignorance of most of the employees (including me). They insisted that the NDA
was "standard," managers told us that there was no room for negotiation and
pushed to have us sign immediately (eventually relented to having it signed by
end of the following day).

------
gok
Great! ...as long as this doesn't just mean nonsensically narrow rules like
the new Illinois law, which only applies to low wage workers (< $13/hour).

~~~
greglindahl
Most laws are a reaction to something stupid, and in this particular case it's
a reaction against sandwich shops requiring low-wage workers to sign non-
competes.

~~~
kalms
Really? Those sandwiches must be something special for sure.

It actually seems borderline malicious and evil to me. Modern day slavery.

------
didgeoridoo
A ban seems heavy-handed. Since a noncompete essentially ties up an employee
for a period, I'd prefer to see that tie-up treated by law as a continuation
of employment at the existing salary. Surely companies must value their
precious IP more than a single employee's salary for a year or two — and if
they don't, perhaps it isn't that valuable after all.

------
dustinmr
This seems to miss how companies will react if enacted. If there's a freer
flow on the talent side, corporations will want a freer flow as well. I would
expect this to accelerate the current trend of converting more and more
positions to contract or temporary positions rather than employment.

I think that's a good thing.

I'm not sure the White House would agree.

------
dominotw
Ban-ing things is like writing explanatory code comments instead of working
out why that code was confusing/hacky in the first place.

Unfortunately, people would rather welcome big brother govt into their lives
than work on fixing the real problem.

~~~
GavinMcG
What is the real problem, in this case?

~~~
dominotw
problem is that the society that creates these oligopolies that can coordinate
with each other to limit worker movement.

------
npezolano
California is one of the few states that doesn't honor out of state non-
competes.

------
tjpnz
Anyone know how these work in practice in Japan? The constitution here
guarantees the right to work where you want yet I've witnessed people being
asked to sign them upon leaving a job.

------
omouse
Thank the lord, non-competes are a criminal waste of productivity.

------
flukus
> The Obama administration on Tuesday also urged states to ban non-compete
> agreements that are not proposed before a job offer or promotion is accepted
> and said employers should not be able to enforce the agreements when workers
> are laid off.

Won't this just move the non-compete to be included in the job offer instead
of the formal employment contract? That's a slight improvement at best.

------
squozzer
If this gets any traction, I might consider giving BHO a C+ grade for his
administration.

------
smokedoutraider
While I don't agree with non-competes, I don't understand how it's even
slightly ok to allow a government to decide private business policies.

~~~
ViViDboarder
Typically to prevent abuse of employees, who often have far less power than a
company does. That is unless they are organized as a group to heighten their
bargaining power.

------
shadowban_me
I like how anyone even mentioning IP is downvoted to hell. It really shows you
what market Ycombinator is really in. Every single comment is either someone's
personal narrative, or a ridiculous troll where "OMG WHY" is the only thing
they say in each sentence. Wow, I wonder how this ever became law when
YCombinator commentators are so opposed to it?

------
DominikR
I wonder what a principled position on this matter would be.

On one hand everyone is free to trade freedoms for gains (usually monetary -
every contract restricts both parties freedom), but on the other hand you
can't trade certain freedoms away that we view as fundamental.

Even though I am certainly no proponent of non-compete agreements I cautiously
tend towards viewing such contracts as acceptable and valid.

You usually do limit selling your services already the moment you accept a
position as an employee, at least for the time you stay employed there.
Contractually expanding it for a mutually agreed upon period doesn't strike me
as that much different, at least as long as there was no coercion involved and
both sides fully understood the consequences.

~~~
flukus
The coercion is usually that you don't know about the non-compete until you
walk in and sign your employment contract on day 1.

>Contractually expanding it for a mutually agreed upon period doesn't strike
me as that much different

As long as I'm compensated for that period (a normal wage) then I think it's
fair.

~~~
DominikR
> The coercion is usually that you don't know about the non-compete until you
> walk in and sign your employment contract on day 1.

Okay this is really bad, in the EU country where I live you usually first
negotiate and sign the contract, then start working.

But the drawback is that it is really just done this way because the
government requires that the business notifies it about your employment before
you start working, which is a privacy issue.

I think I'd still prefer it the US way. I'd ask about this before starting to
work. (if this isn't a no go)

~~~
cableshaft
Yep, they spring it on you by giving you your 'Employee Handbook' or something
on your first day, after you accepted the offer and relocated and whatever
else you wanted to do, then sit down to sign paperwork on your first day
and.... yep, there it is, that sneaky little non-compete. You ask HR about it
and they'll probably just say "It's standard legalese, everyone here signed
it, it's no big deal, just sign the damn thing, or you can walk."

You have to bring it up in the interview if you don't want to be bound by one.
But even just asking could spook out the interviewees and get them to pass on
you "Is this guy a Snowden? Is he going to steal and leak all our preeeeecious
'secrets'?"

------
losteverything
Tragic story of a business. You decide if it was stolen. Happened a few years
ago to a client friend.

Husband wife owns a florist. Has for decades in a county fourth highes per
capita income in us.

Built a nice life but it was time to retire and sell the business.

They did not own their building.

New landlord buys building ( shop in nice main street area.) raises rent to
outrageous amount. Too much to run the business.

Husband wife team can't sell florist before New lease starts and they do not
sign lease.

The very Next week !!!! Next week - building owner puts up new sign for a new
florist.

The owners lost everything. They owned some things like coolers - and got $$
for those.

~~~
ghaff
In other words, a landlord decided not to renew a lease and opened their own
business.

On the one hand, it's a bit sleazy to attempt to cash in on the previous
shop's customer relationships. But I have trouble calling this "stolen."
Presumably, if it were a Starbucks that were opened instead, it wouldn't be so
objectionable even though the net effect on the previous store owners is
largely the same.

~~~
losteverything
The couple is devastated.

I call it sleazy. But wonder why someone didn't let them see that outcome
could happen.

~~~
ghaff
I agree the thing carries something of a smell and is unfortunate. On the
other hand, I'm not sure how much salable value there is in a typical florist
(or indeed in many retail businesses) even if it's throwing off a reasonable
income stream for the owners that would lead someone to buy an existing
business, rather than just starting fresh.

