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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).