Games

16800 readers

549 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc..
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.

Comments.

No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

505

US game devs celebrate as non-compete clauses, previously deemed 'a trash way to keep the talent', face a ban from the FTC—which would free up movement across the AAA industry (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[+] [email protected] -12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The argument I did make is the non-competes were never there to "retain talent.

Then why were they there?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

To prevent people from being paid by multiple companies at the same time, which is a thing only execs do...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think you may be misinformed as to what a non-compete agreement is. For example, when I worked for leaf filter, I had to sign a non-compete agreement that stated I couldn't/wouldn't work in the gutter protection industry for 6-12 months after leaving their company. Was it too broad to enforce and just their to keep anybody with a working brain from taking their service and providing it for cheaper? Yes. Did it work, effectively driving down competition and allowing them to effectively pigeonhole the US market? Also yes.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Depending on which employer you move to, you can still be sued regardless of non-competes, happens all the time where non-competes don't exist (California). You can still receive a cease and desist depending on what you have worked on and where you are working now based on the IP regulations and non-disclosures, so this does nothing (and nobody in the industry is actually celebrating this except a few executives where the was enforceable).

I've signed dozens of these contracts, I know how they affect people, I know what they mean and how they are used.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

A non-compete is, in essence, a clause that dictates whether a worker can find employment (or create a product) that directly competes with their employer—even if they aren't working for them anymore. Typically, these will last around six months to a year after the end of employment, but they can last longer.

Six months to a year after employment is hardly "at the same time."