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?
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.
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?
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.
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.