SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the tell-that-to-Intel,-Apple,-and-Adobe dept.
Natalie Kitroeff writes at Bloomberg that a new study says the secret to Silicon Valley’s triumph as the global capital of innovation may lie in a quirk of California’s employment law that prohibits the legal enforcement of non-compete clauses.
Unlike most states, California prohibits enforcement of non-compete clauses that force people who leave jobs to wait for a predetermined period before taking positions at rival companies. That puts California in the ideal position to rob other regions of their most prized inventors, “Policymakers who sanction the use of non-competes could be inadvertently creating regional disadvantage as far as retention of knowledge workers is concerned,” wrote the authors of the study "Regional disadvantage? Employee non-compete agreements and brain drain" (PDF). "Regions that choose to enforce employee non-compete agreements may therefore be subjecting themselves to a domestic brain drain not unlike that described in the literature on international emigration out of less developed countries."
The study, which looked at the behavior of people who had registered at least two patents from 1975 to 2005, focused on Michigan, which in 1985 reversed its long-standing prohibition of non-compete agreements. The authors found that after Michigan changed the rules, the rate of emigration among inventors was twice as a high as it was in states where non-competes remained illegal. Even worse for Michigan, its most talented inventors were also the most likely to flee. "Firms are going to be willing to relocate someone who is really good, as opposed to someone who is average," says Lee Fleming. For the inventors, it makes sense to take a risk on a place such as California, where they have more freedom. "If the job they relocate for doesn’t work out, then they can walk across the street because there are no non-competes
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday March 20 2015, @05:19PM
Noncompete clauses are unconstitutional. While an employer is paying my wages, he has a lot of leeway regarding what he may require of me. The day he STOPS paying my wages, he has zero freaking authority over me. I can open my own company right down the street from him, and go into direct competition. Screw any noncompete clause. One cannot surrender his RIGHTS by simply signing a stupid contract. You have the RIGHT to work in your chosen field, and a former employer has zero rights to say otherwise.
Unconstitutional? Really? Where exactly is it in the U.S. Constitution that defines what can be in contract and what cannot?
Is that in the Commerce Clause? Please. You're either woefully uninformed, trolling or just plain dumb.
it is true that non-compete clauses are difficult to enforce, unless there's some kind of delayed compensation involved. Even then, it's a civil matter, rather than a criminal one. IIRC, there have been some cases (usually combined with IP/trade secret claims and/or customer lists) where non-compete clauses have been successfully enforced through litigation. However, it's usually not worth pursuing.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 20 2015, @05:32PM
People can't sign away rights. That is why indentured servitude is illegal. I cannot have you sign a EULA that specifies that the second amendment no longer applies to you for instance.
Really just look at non-competes. It forces someone into servitude, even if the person being served does not request anything. It is a form of ownership over someone else. Simple as that. To defend it is to defend slavery.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday March 20 2015, @05:49PM
People can't sign away rights. That is why indentured servitude is illegal. I cannot have you sign a EULA that specifies that the second amendment no longer applies to you for instance.
Really just look at non-competes. It forces someone into servitude, even if the person being served does not request anything. It is a form of ownership over someone else. Simple as that. To defend it is to defend slavery.
I'm not going to address your lack of logical reasoning, poor rhetorical skills or apparently nonexistent knowledge of contract and constitutional law, nor am I going to address the logical fallacies in your statement other than to posit that you prove the oft quoted and, almost as often, mis-attributed maxim: 'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 20 2015, @06:17PM
> Unconstitutional? Really? Where exactly is it in the U.S. Constitution that defines what can be in contract and what cannot?
It is really funny watching runaway try to reconcile his far-right pseudo-libertarianism with the possibility of getting fucked over by the inevitable consequences of his ideology. For guys like him, "the constitution" is a sort of divine authority. So when the cognitive dissonance gets too strong, people like him give up any pretense of logic and just punt up to to their god, hoping that because his religion is the one true religion there is no way his god would let him down.