Ridin' with Biden

[Cuddles]

The whole purpose of non compete clauses is to make sure an employee you trained and invested in does not just take the client list and bolt and all the current market info and use it against the company. It has some merit and should not be banned outright. It also depends on how the employee leaves.

More than one year seems excessive in most cases unless you have proprietary and exclusive info. Banning it outright though seems typical government overkill to address a problem by just killing something instead of reforming.

that's just the BS excuse they give to suppress wages.

 

[El OchoCinco]

that's just the BS excuse they give to suppress wages.

Non competes dont supress wages....as I said non competes can be upheld for partners and high level execs who earn 6 figures or more. non competes for low wage earners should not be upheld as there is no damage from a waiter or dishwasher leaving a restaurant to work somewhere else.

 

[Cuddles]

Non competes dont supress wages....as I said non competes can be upheld for partners and high level execs who earn 6 figures or more. non competes for low wage earners should not be upheld as there is no damage from a waiter or dishwasher leaving a restaurant to work somewhere else.

Sure they do. They literally suppress competition from employers bidding up wages. There's irony in the name.

edit: Maybe. maybe not. If you're freeing up a supply of experienced workers that should technically lower wages, but if you've got workers locked in geographically, you can dictate compensation/raises since they're stuck.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Sure they do. They literally suppress competition from employers bidding up wages. There's irony in the name.

edit: Maybe. maybe not. If you're freeing up a supply of experienced workers that should technically lower wages, but if you've got workers locked in geographically, you can dictate compensation/raises since they're stuck.

Most upheld non competes are not geographically based but time based so the issue you are mentioning is hypothetical. Non competes dont ban comptition permanently, they provide a time element. Often they are meant to prevent you from going to the competition which means there is competition and using what you know and learned to then harm the company you left.

Also geographic non competes dont supress wages, they mainly stop an enmployee from going to a competitor in the same region BUT the competitor still exists and there is still competition. Competition means compete....not use former employees to pull client lists and other information which competitors often do in luring employees at competitive firms.

I think you are hypothesizing about non competes rather than looking at what they really do. I am not in favor of all non competes but for high level execs and partners you can understand why they exists.... It does not stifle competition, it stops a partner from leaving to go help the competition with all the time and resources you poured into them.

If employees wants to leave and the non compete is burdensome for non reasonable reasons they will be struck down.

that is why I said non compete clauses do serve a purpose and banning them outright is typical government bull in a china shop. It would be easier to simply regulate them better to avoid low wage earners or low wage jobs from requiring non competes since that is ridiculous.

 

[Cuddles]

Most upheld non competes are not geographically based but time based so the issue you are mentioning is hypothetical. Non competes dont ban comptition permanently, they provide a time element. Often they are meant to prevent you from going to the competition which means there is competition and using what you know and learned to then harm the company you left.

Also geographic non competes dont supress wages, they mainly stop an enmployee from going to a competitor in the same region BUT the competitor still exists and there is still competition. Competition means compete....not use former employees to pull client lists and other information which competitors often do in luring employees at competitive firms.

I think you are hypothesizing about non competes rather than looking at what they really do. I am not in favor of all non competes but for high level execs and partners you can understand why they exists.... It does not stifle competition, it stops a partner from leaving to go help the competition with all the time and resources you poured into them.

If employees wants to leave and the non compete is burdensome for non reasonable reasons they will be struck down.

that is why I said non compete clauses do serve a purpose and banning them outright is typical government bull in a china shop. It would be easier to simply regulate them better to avoid low wage earners or low wage jobs from requiring non competes since that is ridiculous.

I don't think it's hypothetical for many engineers in San Mateo or Palo Alto area to avoid switching jobs for better pay for fear of a non compete legal battle. I understand many are non-enforceable but many don't know that. Lots of contracting agencies use them liberally for technicians too. Good riddance imo, even if they weren't worth the paper they're printed on.

 

[gwb-trading]

Generally, courts will uphold a non-compete if there is a protectable interest and the clause is reasonable . Of course they should be banned for low wage earners and in low wage industries.

But in the upper levels non compete clauses for 1 year make a lot of sense in protecting corporate interests. A high level employee working at a consulting firm decides to leave and start their own firm can take the client list. That is not part of a non disclosure agreement which only covers confidential information or proprietary information. But the employee still knows who all the clients are and still knows the cost structure, job process, market insights gianed from training and all other aspects that a non disclosure agreement does not cover. Think of Michael Scott leaving Dunder Mifflin and starting his own paper company. The episode was doen jokingly but that happens quite a bit.

NDA does not stop an employee from taking the names of the clients or taking with them all that training and competitive advantage market info. Client lists are not necessarily proprietary info. Neither is all the training the employee received. In these cases non compete clauses for partners and senior executives are needed to protect the company and the investment they made in the person. NDA's do not cover this.

If an employee is let go, often severance is done in conjunction with non competes.

Non competes for lower level employees, low wage industries or even industries such as restaurants can certainly be struck down as those are ridiculous.

There are also ways around non competes as I have seen lawyers or partners get hired and basically spend the 1 year in an office behind the scenes until their non compete expires.

The 1 year often placed in the agreement is often just a cooling off period to allow the company time to deal with the high level employee leaving and the possible damage they can do. After all an employee that leaves can go to a big client and say "You were paying $600/hour for my work and my team there, I can work for you now on my own for $400/hour and I know your case file very well"

 

[Cuddles]

Most upheld non competes are not geographically based but time based so the issue you are mentioning is hypothetical. Non competes dont ban comptition permanently, they provide a time element. Often they are meant to prevent you from going to the competition which means there is competition and using what you know and learned to then harm the company you left.

Also geographic non competes dont supress wages, they mainly stop an enmployee from going to a competitor in the same region BUT the competitor still exists and there is still competition. Competition means compete....not use former employees to pull client lists and other information which competitors often do in luring employees at competitive firms.

I think you are hypothesizing about non competes rather than looking at what they really do. I am not in favor of all non competes but for high level execs and partners you can understand why they exists.... It does not stifle competition, it stops a partner from leaving to go help the competition with all the time and resources you poured into them.

If employees wants to leave and the non compete is burdensome for non reasonable reasons they will be struck down.

that is why I said non compete clauses do serve a purpose and banning them outright is typical government bull in a china shop. It would be easier to simply regulate them better to avoid low wage earners or low wage jobs from requiring non competes since that is ridiculous.

I didn't really care to read past the headline announcement but lots of echoing of what i said:

 

[gwb-trading]

Biden's '24 pivot
President Biden is quietly pivoting to the middle as he prepares for a 2024 run.
https://www.axios.com/2023/01/08/biden-2024-centrist-pivot

 

[ids]

It is too late. We know who he is now.

 

[wildchild]

What are you waiting for?

Is that the same corvette that Biden stores the classified documents next to?