 |
 |
 |
|
04.30.09 The Great Debate Over Non-Compete Clauses Continues  By Steve DuplessieThe Non-Compete Clause Debate which i'm having with myself, goes something like this; Pro: As an employer and business person, I want to absolutely protect myself and my people from dirt bags who are brought into our business, taught everything about how to succeed, and then flee to either another outfit or to start their own wanna-be outfit. Why should my company be put under any risk from someone who learned their craft and built their relationships because of us? For a company to work successfully, it normally intimates that those who work for you have to be “in the know” to be effective. They have to learn all the little secrets that make you successful - why should they be allowed to use those same secrets against you? Con: As an entrepreneur, and a Darwinist, I want the creativity that occurs inside a company to be allowed to move out and set up new businesses, with new opportunities, and new models to contribute to the real economy. How much innovation is stifled because a business never gets started or gets started too late because of fighting non-compete issues? Does not the success of Silicon Valley and the effective demise of the Rt. 128 club prove that the non-compete is bad for overall growth of the entrepreneurial economy? If no one could ever leave their job and go elsewhere or start their own gig, would DEC still be the biggest company in MA? I think not.
The problem is the answer is both. If you simply leave because you are a dirt bag - you want to take all that someone has taught you and use it directly against them - you should absolutely be tortured in a public square while good looking girls laugh at your inadequacies. If you leave with what you learned to do things differently, because you see a better/different opportunity or a new business model that makes more sense in the new world order - then are you really directly competing? These are complex issues, but if you put a gun to my head, as much as want to protect myself and my folks, I would pick against the enforcing of non-competes as they are currently written. What we need to do is change/re-write the laws in such a way that we protect the investment and intellectual property we put into to our people without killing their ability to do new accretive things which add value to the world - but get everyone (and yes, that means you California) to agree that direct dirt bag no-value add slime-ball non-compete violations will be prosecuted and those who commit them completely emasculated. I'm sure they will go for that... By the way - this rant came about because EMC instantly sued Dave Donatelli - which I expected - and he instantly counter-sued (from California) - which I expected. It will cost a bunch of time and money, and I can't see how EMC can win, but they will get some bullshit concessions from HP (Dave won't really do storage, or something silly), both spend too much, and in the end it won't matter in the least. EMC needs to do this so others know they will enforce their rights, so I don't blame them - but there has to be a better way, no? Comments About the Author: Steve Duplessie is the author of the "Steve's IT Rants" blog, and the founder and Sr. Analyst of the Enterprise Strategy Group. |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
-- HumanResourceNews is an iEntry, Inc. publication -- iEntry, Inc. 2549 Richmond Rd. Lexington KY, 40509 2009 iEntry, Inc. All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy | Legal archives | advertising info | news headlines | free newsletters | comments/feedback | submit article |
