Re:New York State Senate passes prohibitions on non-competes
by jzb on Wednesday June 14, 2023 @04:06PM
(#36331812)
"Are there a lot of issues with non-competes?"
What would constitute "a lot"? The last few years I've seen an increase in the tech industry of non-competes being required for less senior roles, plus reports of using non-competes in low-wage industries to try to freeze workers from leaving jobs. [1]
They're also over-broad and selectively enforced. I was considering a job last year that had a non-compete and wasn't eager to sign it because if you read it broadly it would've been hard for me to take a job that wasn't with a "competitor." Which was 1) over-broad and 2) bogus because the harm that would've been done to me was far outsized to any harm I could've done taking a job with any competitor.
I wasn't going to be such a strategic employee that me going to Company B would have hurt Company A in any real way (nor would I have been compensated at that level...), but I was expected to sign a non-compete and be severely restricted in my next job options -- or roll the dice and hope if I took a job with Company B later on that it wouldn't be considered "a competitor" or that the employer would care.
And that's the other problem - I was told by several people "eh, that's not enforced" but it was not something they were willing to forego, either. I don't sign agreements with the intent I'm not going to live up to them. It's not reasonable to have that kind of uncertainty, either.
Non-competes have their place - I can see, say, Netflix putting in place a NC with a head of programming or major cloud providers having non-competes for very senior execs who have extensive information about strategy, budget, customer lists, etc. But lower-rung employees who don't even have their own budget or any material knowledge about the operations of the business? That's stupid.
What would constitute "a lot"? The last few years I've seen an increase in the tech industry of non-competes being required for less senior roles, plus reports of using non-competes in low-wage industries to try to freeze workers from leaving jobs. [1]
They're also over-broad and selectively enforced. I was considering a job last year that had a non-compete and wasn't eager to sign it because if you read it broadly it would've been hard for me to take a job that wasn't with a "competitor." Which was 1) over-broad and 2) bogus because the harm that would've been done to me was far outsized to any harm I could've done taking a job with any competitor.
I wasn't going to be such a strategic employee that me going to Company B would have hurt Company A in any real way (nor would I have been compensated at that level...), but I was expected to sign a non-compete and be severely restricted in my next job options -- or roll the dice and hope if I took a job with Company B later on that it wouldn't be considered "a competitor" or that the employer would care.
And that's the other problem - I was told by several people "eh, that's not enforced" but it was not something they were willing to forego, either. I don't sign agreements with the intent I'm not going to live up to them. It's not reasonable to have that kind of uncertainty, either.
Non-competes have their place - I can see, say, Netflix putting in place a NC with a head of programming or major cloud providers having non-competes for very senior execs who have extensive information about strategy, budget, customer lists, etc. But lower-rung employees who don't even have their own budget or any material knowledge about the operations of the business? That's stupid.
[1] https://www.mashed.com/620419/the-contract-you-didnt-realize...