This Post has 6 Responses

Comments

1. Thelonecabbage says:

   August 11, 2008 at 6:43 pm

   Or they could retain the employee by treating him better. Most programmers don’t leave their job for lack of pay, but for promotion or growth opportunities, or companies that simply treat their coders better.

   If you have a specialized skill, say Bio-Informatics, or Search Engine design. Your not going to go leave your present job and start over in video games.

   Non-competes distort the market, forcing talented individuals into non-optimal positions. Non-competes effectively state that an employer owns your learning and growth during your time with him. This is ridiculous. It’s one thing to say, that I can not duplicate (exactly) the work I did for my employer, but another to say I can’t use that experience to create a wholly new competitive product.

   What I carry between my ears is mine, to invoke at my desire, in any form or direction I so wish.
2. Alex Harris says:

   August 12, 2008 at 9:29 am

   So… don’t sign a noncompete!

   Noncompetes may be great deals for people in other sectors. Think of a CEO who works her butt off every day for years, then takes a great severance package with a noncompete that now allows her the retirement she always wanted. She should at least have the option of retiring, and not be forced to work longer, if her company gives her the option.
3. Thelonecabbage says:

   August 12, 2008 at 12:16 pm

   the point isn’t that companies can benefit from a non-compete, or that a sufficiently unique individual can negotiate a compensation packaged for it. The point is that a non-compete implies external ownership of someones skills, thoughts, experiences. It’s absurdity. It’s as absurd to say you can force someone to work (intellectually) as it is to say you can force them not to work.

   As the basis for all ownership, we first have to own ourselves. Experiences and skills are intrinsic parts of self, especially where we are focused on a workers value. A ‘worker’ may sell part of his time, but the one thing he cant sell are parts of him self. A fact already protected by law; a man can not sign a waver to his constitutional rights.
4. Alex Harris says:

   August 12, 2008 at 2:11 pm

   I have to say, I just don’t buy the notion that certain things are inalienable. If I own myself, then I must have the right to do with myself what I want - including agreeing to labor for 40, 80, or 100 hours a week at a job and including agreeing not to labor at all at a certain job. Either way, I am exercising my ownership in myself - just as I would be exercising my ownership in my iPod if I lent it to my friend, or I agreed with him not to lend it to certain other people.

   Now, what the appropriate punishment is for violating a noncompete is a different question than whether the contract should be allowed in the first place. That’s a question for the principle of rectification.
5. Thelonecabbage says:

   August 12, 2008 at 5:19 pm

   the idea that self ownership is inalienable is because I would say you can’t at any point be forced to work.

   Selling your time is different than selling yourself. Who you are, in terms of your productivity, is a function of your skill you will into action. Since at no point, can someone bind your will (well they can, but I’m assuming without violence), you can’t be owned.

   Your time, and your short term commitment, to invoke your skills towards and employers goals, for a period of time, is a salable commodity. Once that time is committed, and expended, it’s fruits belong to the employer. That’s a commodity. On the other hand, what you learn, isn’t a commodity. Because while it enhances the value of your time, it can’t be sold into the ownership of another. Nor can that learning it’s self isolated from the whole of your experience. You can’t, realistically, commit to an employer that the experiences you have while working for them will not influence you later. You can only promise that you won’t use this experience as a weapon against them directly. (which would be a wise thing to avoid in any case)

   In concrete terms I’m saying that an employer can bind you to not do something specific in the future. But to not do anything that would compete with them at a latter date is ridiculous. And that’s how most non-competes are composed. To read these things is ridiculous:

   “You will not work in this field for a period of 5 years after leaving …”

   There is just no way that can hold up in court. To do so would be an issue of free choice, and you can’t sell that (for reasons above). It’s like agreeing to be a slave or bankrupted. I haven’t signed a non-compete in 15 years. In fact I make employers sign a contract that explicitly states that they don’t own anything I do outside their offices. To date, I’ve never had a refusal to sign my statement, or been forced to sign a non-compete upon refusal.
6. Alex Harris says:

   August 13, 2008 at 6:31 pm

   So, is it impermissible to bind my future self’s actions? That is what a noncompete does. It states that I will not perform certain actions in the future. Perhaps such contracts are inherently bad for the people who sign them, but that’s just a reason not to sign one - as you have decided not to.

   It may be nearly physically impossible to agree not to learn or think certain things, but it is certainly not impossible to agree not to work in a certain industry. I guess I don’t see the analogy between noncompetes and selling “what you learn” (though I would also point out that information can be sold, as can its withholding).

   I think our real argument may lie in the principle of rectification. I doubt that you truly believe that it is unjust, and punishable by force, for me to sign an agreement stating that I will not work at a certain job in the future. You may think that such contracts are unenforceable, but that is a different debate. What I owe to the company if I break the agreement is open for discussion.