I’ve been a dev in the AAA industry for almost 15 years now. Every single contract I have ever signed had this clause in it, and it’s never kept me from working. They don’t actually sue you, and for those that it did happen, the contract was thrown out as being too broad.
The people this actually affects are big names who have these insanely lucrative contracts, who have the money to defend it in court.
I don’t think any company has ever used this to retain talent; maybe executives or directors.
Why give them the power anyway? And no, it wasn’t thrown out everytime: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/developers-are-ready-for-noncompete-agreements-to-die
Scott Hartsman, a game development veteran who spent time as an executive at Sony, Trion Worlds, and Wargaming, was one of the few I spoke with who’d ever had a noncompete clause in his contract enforced by a former employer
Your quote makes my point:
- he’s an executive
- one of the few to who this has ever happened
- they aren’t retaining the talent at the company, just its ability to go somewhere else. (They are still paid)
That’s exactly what I said in my comment. They’re thrown out for regular joes because it’s too aggressive, we don’t take money from multiple companies while not working there. Execs take garden leave that can keep going for years, they tend to want to keep them locked in during that time.
You still don’t have the right to work or unions, but we’re going to extend executive’s ability to make money from multiple companies at the same time? This is only passing because it affects mostly the wealthy. It never held power for the average employee.
The article admits nobody is actually celebrating this, and it hasn’t passed. Y’all are just hopping on the bandwagon.
Every single contract I have ever signed had this clause in it, and it’s never kept me from working. They don’t actually sue you, and for those that it did happen, the contract was thrown out as being too broad.
So to be clear: you are in no way arguing for the value of Non-Compete agreements. You are saying that at worst this does absolutely nothing (prevents clauses that are unenforceable) but is harmless. At best it prevents a chilling effect discouraging people from looking for different employment.
I don’t see the problem here.
The argument I did make is the non-competes were never there to "retain talent. Imo this disproportionately helps executives make more money and that’s why it’s being passed.
The argument I did make is the non-competes were never there to "retain talent.
Then why were they there?
Plenty of folks do worry about the possibility of being sued though, so getting rid of a chilling effect is good. Not everyone wants to even deal with the legal struggle or anxiety that would come with that, so it’s good. It gives workers more rights, which is good.
I think I’m confused though about your second paragraph: do you mean that companies only enforce these things on big names, who have money to defend themselves anyway? If so, seems like there’d definitely be a chilling effect for anyone making less, unless they’re willing to take a chance.
That’s the whole joke. Nobody here actually gets the article or case. It helps only those who have garden leaves and extra money in their contract not to go anywhere. Today they call them “fractional executives”.
Downvote all you want, at the end of the day the cease and desist they received would still happen even after this is passed, because slap suits and IP are still a thing.