Here’s Where Martha Coakley Stands on Noncompete Clauses. Oh Wait, Nobody Has Any Idea
If there’s one major policy issue to the startup community, it’s noncompete clauses. Should they be legal? Should they be limited?
On Monday, some members of that community were looking to get answers from Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker about their stances when the candidates for governor spoke to a tech- and startup-minded crowd in Cambridge. They didn’t get much.
Noncompetes are a contractual tool with which employers can require new hires to agree not to work for a competitor for some time after they leave. Imagine you worked as a data analyst for a few years and decided it was time to move on with your career—but had to wait a year before you could do so in Massachusetts.
Entrepreneurs hate noncompetes because they think the agreements make it more difficult to grow or start companies, thus stifling innovation. Big companies love ’em, because they claim they help protect trade secrets. It’s a contention that has some legitimacy until you realize companies apply it to plenty of workers whose knowledge of trade secrets is pretty limited (including, it can’t be said enough, summer camp counselors).
Gov. Deval Patrick attempted this year to ban noncompetes outright, a notion that was seen as friendly to entrepreneurs, innovation, and workers in general. But those efforts failed over the course of the summer.
With a sitting governor who supports their position, the startup community naturally wants to try and gauge how Patrick’s prospective replacements feel. Good luck on that.
“My view is this is an issue we should resolve,’’ Baker said, according to The Boston Globe. “I don’t think we’re that far apart.’’
‘I don’t think we’re that far apart’ at least offers a hint of something: Compromise. Baker has in the past said he’d be in support of finding a middle ground, presumably between an outright ban and the status quo. He said as much in August, speaking as part of a startup networking series held at the coworking space, Workbar. The Baker campaign confirmed to Boston.com that his position is toward some sort of a middle ground, though did not offer details about what that might look like.
It sounds familiar, though, to the compromise the Massachusetts Senate tried to push through this summer after Patrick’s call for an outright ban was denied by the House. Under that proposal, noncompetes would not have been allowed to exceed six months, and would apply only to salaried workers.
While it was seen as progress to some extent, the startup community didn’t love that idea either. Baker’s most relevant experience, to note, came as a leader at a big company, and big companies were the ones most loudly unified in the fight against noncompete reform.
Coakley’s answer to the prescreened (prescreened!) question, meanwhile, was like something out of The Onion:
“I am interested to hear from everybody about this,’’ Coakley said. “I’m open to looking at how we can change it.’’
So Coakley is ‘open to looking’ at change, whatever that means. But it’s safe to assume she has, in fact, heard from everybody about the issue after spending months on the campaign trail and years in public office. It was one of the bigger legislative debates of the year, and this wasn’t the first time it came up. The comment sounds like an attempt to not say anything for fear of offending anybody a few weeks ahead of Election Day.
Boston.com reached out to ask Coakley if she could offer any more details about her plan regarding noncompetes.
A spokesperson said:
“There has been a real split in the tech community itself on this issue, but last year’s debate was the beginning of an important dialogue on non-competes. Martha believes we must continue to adapt to create an environment that allows start-ups to flourish, while protecting the intellectual capital of some of our more established companies. She believes we can do that, and as Governor she will bring all stakeholders together to find solutions that work.’’
Well, that’s great. Her plan is to please everyone, which always works well. And no, there are no details on how until after you elect her.
Really, both sides look wishy washy here, and neither is offering much.
So maybe this question, unscreened though it may be, will put things in better perspective. Why would entrepreneurs, workers, or anybody who sees limiting noncompetes as an important issue consider voting for you?
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com