News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers. Parent comment

Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by elmigranto on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @01:55AM (#12794192)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by greglindahl on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @02:10AM (#12794260)
Well, the counter-example is that the tech industry in California completely collapsed because... oh, wait, we're doing OK.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by pmontra on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @02:36AM (#12794361)
According to other posts here, CA banned non competes some 150 years ago.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by throw_away_777 on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @02:47AM (#12794408)
The post you were replying to was sarcastic. The point is that if non-competes really were essential to companies, you would expect to see that reflected in CA. Instead the most notable thing is CA has higher salaries.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by sjg007 on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @02:11AM (#12794262)
Take the job and let them sue. Scotus won't enforce a noncompete.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by greglindahl on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @02:19AM (#12794294)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by codeonfire on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @02:32AM (#12794338)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by greglindahl on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @02:43AM (#12794393)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by codeonfire on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @05:21AM (#12795027)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by ghaff on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @09:19AM (#12796193)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by jacalata on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @02:47AM (#12794409)
Jimmy John's managed to enforce it on their employees for years http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7042112
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by ams6110 on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @07:45AM (#12795660)
Um... that story states that the clause was never actually enforced therefore there was no valid claim of harm.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by jacalata on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @11:53AM (#12797494)
Good point, that wasn't the best article for my point! There are no specific lawsuits fighting the non-compete, however in the years following that case several states decided that the harm actually is caused simply by making employees sign the non-compete, and the company no longer has one.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many ... by walshemj on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @06:39AM (#12795377)
so go work for a company in CA
[ Parent | on HN ]