Noncompete Clauses Increasingly Pop Up in Array of Jobs

Noncompete clauses are bullshit.<p>We already have an extensive infrastructure in place to protect the intellectual property and trade secrets of companies, including NDAs and those clauses assigning ownership of anything you produce to your employer. But the idea that companies can overstep this bound and place restrictions on how you can use your brain and your general knowledge to produce new, creative work that has only a secondary or tertiary relation to their IP is utterly vile.<p>If the technology existed to erase memories from brains, would these employers insist in their employment clauses that employees who resign must have any professional knowledge acquired on the job erased from existence? This is almost the same thing. If you are an engineer in a niche field, in particular, being barred from that field for a year or more is tantamount to rendering your professional knowledge obsolete.

There&#x27;s a simple solution, of course (besides outright banning of such clauses): require that the employer continue to pay the employee&#x27;s salary until they are released from the clause. See how many summer camps continue to ask for or enforce such clauses then.

&gt; “Noncompetes reduce the potential for poaching,” said Mr. Hazen, whose company makes scratch lottery tickets and special packaging. “We consider them an important way to protect our business. As an entrepreneur who invests a lot of money in equipment, in intellectual property and in people, I’m worried about losing these people we’ve invested in.”<p>Then do everything you can to keep them (pay them well, create a workplace where autonomy, mastery, and purpose are the norm, etc). Spending that $$ on your people instead of lawyering up to take away a former employee&#x27;s livelihood when they find a better opportunity is a terrible way to run your business.

Honest question: would a union help protect workers here?<p>I know many people here don&#x27;t like unions in practice (corruption, stagnation, etc.), but isn&#x27;t this kind of thing exactly what unions are for? It seems like employers are adding these because the feel they have more negotiating power.

I generally think that people should be free to make whatever agreements they want.<p>But noncompetes should be banned for the same reason we have anti-trust laws. They are in effect an agreement between companies to not compete for employees. It&#x27;s anti-competitive.

Someone I know recently started a lower level tech support job and he asked me about a non-compete he had to sign. I couldn&#x27;t believe it! People just starting out in lower level positions have no bargaining power so they have no choice but to sign these or they won&#x27;t get the job.<p>These companies are just screwing themselves because once these new non-competes begin to harm lower level employees then the laws will be changed so these agreements are invalid.

I am currently in Wisconsin under a non compete clause, I couldn&#x27;t find many laws that help support inventors or software developers.

This seems like an extension of the growing trend towards believing that ideas are property. Given that ideas can be developed independently, ideas are <i>not</i> property in any real sense, and therefore require state support to enforce.<p>But anyway, this is a bad, bad trend.

I think they should be enforceable only as long as the company is paying you. So they can either keep paying you and keep you from competitors, or they can waive the non-compete, but they can&#x27;t keep you out of the job market for free.

You&#x27;d be surprised how easy it is to negotiate around this, assuming you&#x27;re in such a position.<p>In either case, always make sure you review the terms and really think about where you&#x27;ll be if you&#x27;re let go or quit in the next 2-3 years.

I&#x27;ve already had to put my money where my mouth is and quit a job over a noncompete clause once. I am fine signing agreements to never disclose anything imaginable about a job, to return company property and destroy any copies of documents&#x2F;information that I have, to not solicit the company&#x27;s clients, etc. But to further agree not to work in the same industry for any period of time? Never, ever will I agree to such a thing.

And this is why I would not work in any state except for California.<p>(Actually one of many reasons - California has a lot of laws to protect the employee)

Noncompetes except in the most specific of cases is categorically stupid. And even in those rare cases, still feels nasty. I do understand where its useful in keeping a major dominant player&#x2F;nigh monopolist from picking up key talent from up and coming competitors, but thats about it.

This is interesting because in CA, a non-compete is almost pointless - its illegal under state law, no matter what your term-sheet says. I think there&#x27;s an argument that in some cases it may make sense, but those situations are the exceptions, not the rule.

You don&#x27;t want to sign a non-compete in Georgia. They went the direction of Massachusetts a few years ago. <a href="http://www.noncompetetradesecretslaw.com/?cat=37" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.noncompetetradesecretslaw.com&#x2F;?cat=37</a>

As a developer, what can be done to protect against this if you are already signed to one?

I strongly believe that basic law and legal issues (i.e. contracts and legal rights) should be a required class and taught in all high schools.

Sign the strictest non compete you can - if it&#x27;s too strict in most states, even the less strict clauses are voided immediately. Research first but that&#x27;s usually true.

Good luck trying to find a judge that would enforce a non-compete for basically any employee below a C-level title.<p>You can&#x27;t sneak a non-compete <i>clause</i> in with no compensation for it and expect it to hold up in court.