Hacker News Reader

Comment by drawkbox | Hacker News Reader

I know this, when I get a non-compete it makes me not want to work on that project.

It is like a reverse market regulation against workers that are bringing the productivity and skills to the company.

Company: "Hey come here and build us this thing that makes us capable in this area, and when you are done you can't go on building things for other people". It almost seems like a fatal attraction or overly obsessed/attached owner/girlfriend.

Non-competes are a kick in the nuts really to put it bluntly. You'll know the feeling when you get one. It is closer to a company trying to own a skilled worker rather than a partnership.

View on HN

You are speaking to emotions, which means I have no way of addressing your concerns, but I will try to highlight why I do not share your conclusions:

>"makes me not want"

I do not want to agree to many terms, so I do not agree to them; this does not make me want to ban those terms.

>"It is like a reverse market regulation"

Non-competes are 'like' any other business agreement to me. In any case, I am not sure what a 'reverse market regulation' is.

>"seems like a fatal attraction or overly obsessed/attached owner/girlfriend"

If you were analogizing an employer/employee relationship to a sexual one, they would seem most similar to a pimp or john; I do not think this is a useful analogy.

>"are a kick in the nuts... You'll know the feeling"

Many agreements feel unpleasant; I dislike any deal which obligates me to pay a large sum of money. This is interesting, but not very important to anyone else.

The way I look at a job is you get paid three ways.

1. Money.

2. Skills and Knowledge.

3. Career Contacts.

With non-competes a company is trying to screw you out of #2 and 3.

If you think non-compete agreements 'screw you out of #2 and 3", but still want the job (probably) because it is your best chance to get #1, it seems that you are being paid 1 in exchange for 2 and 3. The non-compete ban simply blinds you to the opportunity of selling 2 and 3.

That is how it should work in theory, but not how it works in practice. In practice companies can use their better understanding of the true value/cost of non-competes to exploit workers. If there exists a large pool of workers who are willing to sign non-competes because they are not well informed about them, than in order to get a job you will have to sign a non-compete (or move to CA).

As a counterpoint, it allows companies to give you a higher salary in exchange for #2 and 3. Or alternatively, if non-competes are the norm, it would allow a business to provide lower salaries for the incentive of no non-compete clause.

The argument whether to ban non-competes should be rooted in the practical applications of the clause. Highly skilled, in-demand workers have the power and financial safety to negotiate a non-compete clause.

The question is when the power dynamic between employer and employee is heavily skewed yowards the employer, can they abuse this imbalance to force non-competes as a market equilibrium.

For example, for a person struggling financially, the slightly higher salary may be a short-term requirement, while the non-compete ruins their long-term prospects.

iff it's a higher salary in exchange for #2 and 3

i suspect the employer / (healthcareinsurer if in US) imbalance is really the core issue.

In medical research ethics, informed consent acknowledges the imbalance. I think e.g. CA unenforcement of non-compete does a similar job.

(I am also a worker bee and benefit from non-enforcement, so take my input for the electrons they're based on.)

I'd be ok with #2 and #3 if the company would continue to pay the employee for the full duration of the non-compete.

The issue is, as you mentioned, the employer does have an unfair negotiating advantage. Most employees don't have the luxury of paying lawyers (or the knowledge that this is something they should do) to look at every non-compete offer and explain the contract. Having just gone through the process, lawyers are very expensive and time consuming. Talking to people about it reveals that most people don't really understand the issue either, believing wrongly that non-competes are not enforceable. Many companies also try to hide non-competes until after you have accepted the job offer. Companies in contrast have a much easier time hiring a lawyer, as they can offer a standard non-compete to each of their potential hires. So this is an area where it makes sense for the government to step in and protect workers.

Or the non-compete allows them to keep your salary lower because you have fewer options of places to work.

That is the right answer.

If a particular situation like non-competes is a net negative for society as a whole I don't see why we should bother to allow them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com