It ultimately changes nothing in the tech sector, as noncompetes were unenforceable in California. However, it does give companies less reason to stay in that blistering boil of a state.
Wow, I never would have expected that in the corporatist government.
I've heard of some being included in severance agreements, so essentially you're being let go and in order to get severance you can't work in the field you likely have the most experience for a year. It's evil.
You’ll see, this is going to blow up massively on us. The FTC is now allowing employee poaching which is what non competes were designed to stop in the first place. This is only going to benefit corporate socialism and the oligarchic regulatory structures.
this. and if you were a startup without the funds to up the ante, you can provide things like stock options to your employees. any startup worth their salts is planning on growing, so stock options in a startup have a lot of potential value. if the startup isn't planning on growing, then the employee should be abandoning ship anyway.
That’s not how employee poaching works. You would have to double your R&D costs because any larger competitor will just keep upping the offer to clone the IP at a reduced price.
No start-up has the resources to offer employees the same deals they can get if a big corp wants to entice them. Especially if that same big corp is using their market clout to crush the start-up's profits.
As someone who's done both, there is no amount of money I can be paid to put up with megacorp red tape, bullshit, and having X - Sqrt(X) of my "fellow" employees being fucking leeches on productivity.
Communists talk about the owners of production being leeches, but the kind of lazy DEI dindu slobs that manage to hold on to their jobs for decades without ever doing anything worth any value to anyone are the true leeches.
If you're an up-and-coming software engineer/ product designer / marketer etc living in a dense blue urban shithole like NY or SF with sky-high rents, are you going to go for the stock option, or are you going to take the job that's offering you a 6-figure salary right now?
But that's where a lot of talented young people do go, because at least the perception exists that that's where the jobs are. Again, large corps with substantial resources can always out-compete startups for talent in that environment.
Oh fuck off. I'm probably one of the furthest to the right there is on this sub.
It's risk vs reward. If the company goes public/gets bought out by a bigger company, they will earn way more money than what they would have with that higher salary. Besides, those higher salaries don't exist when all of the companies collude with each other to keep salaries low and enforce non compete clauses like Google and Apple were busted for doing a few years ago.
It's risk vs reward. If the company goes public/gets bought out by a bigger company, they will earn way more money than what they would have with that higher salary.
You just said we need to bribe employees to not be scumbags and steal IP for another company. That’s corporate espionage not risk/ reward.
Besides, those higher salaries don't exist when all of the companies collude with each other to keep salaries low and enforce non compete clauses like Google and Apple were busted for doing a few years ago.
You mean collude with the government to spam employee visas to China and India which keeps salaries artificially low. How many smaller companies are spamming H-1B visas to fill positions? If you think wages are low now, just wait until you get compartmentalized with cut hours and no benefits because it will be cheaper to contract employees for short durations than run the risk of losing IP to poaching. This will do exactly what what “Obamacare” did to the workplace initially, full time becomes to costly, so now you’re a contractor just under the minimum requirement for health insurance.
employees are not cattle. be prepared to pay to keep your institutional knowledge base. even if the richest company hires away all of the best in their field, they'll still have troubles competing with a startup with B-grade talent. The startup won't have 50:1 ratio of program managers and other clipboard-grippers playing office politics and #metoo'ing your male white scientists and engineers.
This is a completely inane argument. If a company researches, creates, and produces an ip, then gooogle comes along, drops a couple million to poach 3 employees with knowledge and experience on the IP, you just lost everything, simply because morons like you don’t understand business is more than input/output and are applauding destroying non competes that only last until the product they were designing is launched. If an employee is not cattle, then a business isn’t a grazing field.
This is really the best argument for non competes tbh. That being said, it only covers some of them. My company (one of the largest in its sector in the world) had us all sign non competes last year and they were very much the "try to prevent people from leaving" kind as opposed to the "try to prevent people from being poached" kind.
I can appreciate the notion that they can prevent small startups from being able to be destroyed by a giant competitor at any time, but most non competes are not used in that manner. Perhaps some sort of an exception could be carved out for small businesses (wishful thinking I know).
Non competes are far, far from perfect and have inherent flaws when used by large companies as you said. Doing away with it entirely however will lead to mass employment poaching. It’s the inverse of killing small companies by selling at a loss until you have price control, you simply outspend them until you can clone their IP or carrion feed from the business going under.
I never would have expected that in the corporatist government.
It's double-edged from their perspective. Non-competes keep them from getting poached, but it prevents them from poaching themselves. After all, if you've got the sector's deepest pockets, poaching goes one way only.
I can see how, I was just looking at this line of the press release:
Additionally, the Commission has eliminated a provision in the proposed rule that would have required employers to legally modify existing noncompetes by formally rescinding them. That change will help to streamline compliance.
I guess what that means is that they don't have to edit contracts to remove the non-competes, they just have to notify the employee.
I've already heard this could apply to Vtubers if they want to switch agencies but ironically enough, the one you'd think this apply to most, Nijisanji DOESN'T have noncompete clauses in the contracts we've managed to see, they just financially deprive you enough that you can't compete.
I'm trying to work out the government's angle and only think that comes to mind is something like Crowders case where a former employee was allegedly trying to use former contacts when he was working for him to poach to his new company.
I actually just posted this to one of the VTuber subreddits because I thought of that exact thing, but we'll see. I'm not sure how many of the major VTubers are in the US, as it's probably more than I think, but I don't really dive into PLs that much unless it's kinda 'mandatory', as with Fuwamoco, as their rise doesn't make much sense if you don't know the backstory behind them leaving their PL.
It ultimately changes nothing in the tech sector, as noncompetes were unenforceable in California. However, it does give companies less reason to stay in that blistering boil of a state.
Wow, I never would have expected that in the corporatist government.
I've heard of some being included in severance agreements, so essentially you're being let go and in order to get severance you can't work in the field you likely have the most experience for a year. It's evil.
True. What's the catch?
"Competitors" are all part of their industry's cabal, in service as cronies to the fed.
You’ll see, this is going to blow up massively on us. The FTC is now allowing employee poaching which is what non competes were designed to stop in the first place. This is only going to benefit corporate socialism and the oligarchic regulatory structures.
offer your best employees better and they'll stay.
this. and if you were a startup without the funds to up the ante, you can provide things like stock options to your employees. any startup worth their salts is planning on growing, so stock options in a startup have a lot of potential value. if the startup isn't planning on growing, then the employee should be abandoning ship anyway.
That’s not how employee poaching works. You would have to double your R&D costs because any larger competitor will just keep upping the offer to clone the IP at a reduced price.
No start-up has the resources to offer employees the same deals they can get if a big corp wants to entice them. Especially if that same big corp is using their market clout to crush the start-up's profits.
As someone who's done both, there is no amount of money I can be paid to put up with megacorp red tape, bullshit, and having X - Sqrt(X) of my "fellow" employees being fucking leeches on productivity.
Communists talk about the owners of production being leeches, but the kind of lazy DEI dindu slobs that manage to hold on to their jobs for decades without ever doing anything worth any value to anyone are the true leeches.
Then give them stock options that get paid out if the company ever goes public. If the company doesn't make it, you owe them nothing.
If you're an up-and-coming software engineer/ product designer / marketer etc living in a dense blue urban shithole like NY or SF with sky-high rents, are you going to go for the stock option, or are you going to take the job that's offering you a 6-figure salary right now?
I'm going to go for a job that isn't in NYC or SF. There is no salary high enough to convince me to live there.
But that's where a lot of talented young people do go, because at least the perception exists that that's where the jobs are. Again, large corps with substantial resources can always out-compete startups for talent in that environment.
Sure, and if the business fails, the employees are liable correct? No? Oh wait, you’re a leftist who wants to socialize losses and privatize gains.
Oh fuck off. I'm probably one of the furthest to the right there is on this sub.
It's risk vs reward. If the company goes public/gets bought out by a bigger company, they will earn way more money than what they would have with that higher salary. Besides, those higher salaries don't exist when all of the companies collude with each other to keep salaries low and enforce non compete clauses like Google and Apple were busted for doing a few years ago.
You just said we need to bribe employees to not be scumbags and steal IP for another company. That’s corporate espionage not risk/ reward.
You mean collude with the government to spam employee visas to China and India which keeps salaries artificially low. How many smaller companies are spamming H-1B visas to fill positions? If you think wages are low now, just wait until you get compartmentalized with cut hours and no benefits because it will be cheaper to contract employees for short durations than run the risk of losing IP to poaching. This will do exactly what what “Obamacare” did to the workplace initially, full time becomes to costly, so now you’re a contractor just under the minimum requirement for health insurance.
employees are not cattle. be prepared to pay to keep your institutional knowledge base. even if the richest company hires away all of the best in their field, they'll still have troubles competing with a startup with B-grade talent. The startup won't have 50:1 ratio of program managers and other clipboard-grippers playing office politics and #metoo'ing your male white scientists and engineers.
This is a completely inane argument. If a company researches, creates, and produces an ip, then gooogle comes along, drops a couple million to poach 3 employees with knowledge and experience on the IP, you just lost everything, simply because morons like you don’t understand business is more than input/output and are applauding destroying non competes that only last until the product they were designing is launched. If an employee is not cattle, then a business isn’t a grazing field.
This is really the best argument for non competes tbh. That being said, it only covers some of them. My company (one of the largest in its sector in the world) had us all sign non competes last year and they were very much the "try to prevent people from leaving" kind as opposed to the "try to prevent people from being poached" kind.
I can appreciate the notion that they can prevent small startups from being able to be destroyed by a giant competitor at any time, but most non competes are not used in that manner. Perhaps some sort of an exception could be carved out for small businesses (wishful thinking I know).
Non competes are far, far from perfect and have inherent flaws when used by large companies as you said. Doing away with it entirely however will lead to mass employment poaching. It’s the inverse of killing small companies by selling at a loss until you have price control, you simply outspend them until you can clone their IP or carrion feed from the business going under.
It's double-edged from their perspective. Non-competes keep them from getting poached, but it prevents them from poaching themselves. After all, if you've got the sector's deepest pockets, poaching goes one way only.
Only to a point I think.
You poach the best but eventually you have to stop and start working on something to get return on.
During that time new workers might join the job market who may be even better than those you already poached and end up creating a better product.
Or simply Palworld happens again and everyone is taken by surprise.
That sounds like something that could be made illegal, limited to that more narrow situation than banning all non-competes.
It sounds like they are making it retroactive.
I can see how, I was just looking at this line of the press release:
I guess what that means is that they don't have to edit contracts to remove the non-competes, they just have to notify the employee.
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/noncompete-rule.pdf
This is the link to the rule in full.
I've already heard this could apply to Vtubers if they want to switch agencies but ironically enough, the one you'd think this apply to most, Nijisanji DOESN'T have noncompete clauses in the contracts we've managed to see, they just financially deprive you enough that you can't compete.
I'm trying to work out the government's angle and only think that comes to mind is something like Crowders case where a former employee was allegedly trying to use former contacts when he was working for him to poach to his new company.
I actually just posted this to one of the VTuber subreddits because I thought of that exact thing, but we'll see. I'm not sure how many of the major VTubers are in the US, as it's probably more than I think, but I don't really dive into PLs that much unless it's kinda 'mandatory', as with Fuwamoco, as their rise doesn't make much sense if you don't know the backstory behind them leaving their PL.