Libertarian Party of Georgia Opposes Amendment One

For the well articulated reasons below.

Amendment 1:

“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to make Georgia more economically competitive by authorizing legislation to uphold reasonable competitive agreements?”

HR 178 was the resolution that placed this amendment on the ballot. HB 173 is the enabling legislation for this amendment, which passed both chambers in 2010.

This amendment authorizes the enforcement of “non-compete” clauses in employment contracts of private business, relying on statutory legislation, which means that the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) can be changed anytime the legislature is in session by a simple majority with no input by voters. This amendment would stifle growth of the economy by providing a barrier to entry to smaller, more agile firms wishing to compete in the marketplace, should they choose to employ those previously employed by a firm in that industry. While employment contracts can be an important part of an employer-employee relationship, they should not be used to punish those who seek to grow the market outside the established firms.

By stifling the growth afforded by the free market, this amendment does the opposite of its stated intention, as it protects the interests of big business, at the expense of small business growth.

The Libertarian Party of Georgia opposes this amendment and encourages a “No” vote.

 

November 1, 2010  |  Comments  |  Tweet  |  Posted in Politics

Georgia Amendment One Opposition Rules Online

Simply amazing. The image below is the Google first page results of a search on "Georgia Amendment One."

All of these say vote no or are neutral.  The only exception is the Equal Time For Amendment One article. It is written by Jobs of Tomorrow because Peach Pundit is against ammendment one. The comments by Charlie in direct response to Brett Grayson are priceless.

Georgia Amendment One Blogs

October 31, 2010  |  Comments  |  Tweet  |  Posted in Politics

Georgia Amendment One

It is not what its supporters are telling you. It's really a restraint of employee movement amendment. It will result in contracts that limit worker options.  It will effect all skilled workers. It will authorize employee non-compete contracts that are currently not enforceable in Georgia. These contracts will limit worker mobility, drive down salaries, stifle innovation, and result in less new company creation.

Courtesy of Peach Pundit.

  |  Comments  |  Tweet  |  Posted in Politics

Is Amendment One Good For Business?

Benjamin Fink of Berman Fink Van Horn has a very well thought out and footnoted article over on Georgia Non-Compete and Trade Secret News (who knew there was such a thing) titled. Georgia’s New Non-Compete Statute: Is This-legislation Good For Business In Georgia?

Mr. Fink seems to be an expert on the subject.

His conclusion:

In summary, there is no question that the law in Georgia needs to be modernized to allow employers greater protections, when appropriate.  However, the new legislation seems to go well beyond what is necessary to accomplish this goal.  The new legislation also runs contrary to a trend taking hold in other states with which Georgia would like to compete.  In Massachusetts, the legislature is very carefully studying the issue before acting.  While the Georgia legislature purports to have done so, it does not appear to these observers that the Georgia legislature has even scratched the surface of the various perspectives that should be considered, or that it spent the time and energy necessary to truly determine what is best for business in Georgia.

The whole article is worth a read as it debunks many of the statements being made by the folks over at Jobs of Tomorrow.

October 30, 2010  |  Comments  |  Tweet  |  Posted in Uncategorized

Robo-Call Started VoteNoOn1

 

The VoteNoOn1 social media effort came together shortly after I published Georgians Should Vote No in a flurry of DMs late Thursday night with Sanjay Parekh. What sparked the whole thing was Jobs of Tomorrow robo-calling to support the amendment.

Yesterday Jim Galloway of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution published the content of the robo-call:

Georgia progressives have a chance to protect the rights of workers by voting yes on Amendment 1. Amendment 1 will give workers protection from being forced to sign unfair employment agreements at the workplace."

“Please take the time to vote yes on Amendment 1 at the end of your ballot. This message has been provided by the working Georgians at Jobs of Tomorrow. And we urge you to vote yes on Amendment 1.

To paraphrase Joe Wilson, the information contained in the robo-call is intentionally misleading and factually incorrect. Let's deconstruct this real quickly.

Georgia progressives

Beyond a low-cost auto insurer I am not really sure what progressive means.  According to Webster's it is "making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities."  Regardless most would agree that California is a progressive state and a leader in the technology industry.  California has no such law that would result from the passing of amendment one. Moreover, the empirical research supports the view that covenants not to compete have a negative effect on the formation of new companies. Legal scholars believe that contractual restrictions on employee mobility negatively affect employee turnover.  They believe this led to Silicon Valley overtaking Route 128 as the technology capital of the world.

Protect the rights of workers.

I cannot decipher a single sentence in the bill that protects the right of workers.  Search the bill itself for the term "rights of workers." It does not appear once.  Search the bill for the term "restraint." Over 50 results. Search the bill for the term "restraint of trade." You will get 10 results. That is the core of amendment one. Restraining employees from working for other companies in the industries in which they are skilled.

Amendment 1 will give workers protection from being forced to sign unfair employment agreements at the workplace.

This is either disingenuous or naive. Here is the way it works. You look for a job. You interview. You are made an offer. You negotiate certain terms such as bonus, flextime, salary, stock, and time-off. You show up on the first day or sometime before your start date. You sign a bunch of papers to come on board. These papers include confidentiality, non-compete, and non-solicitation agreements. If you want the job you have no choice but to sign the agreements. That will not change if the amendment passes.

What happens today is this. Companies know that non-competes are not enforceable in the state of Georgia. If they brought such a case against a departing employee they would lose. So they are either smart enough to not bundle the confidentiality, non-compete, non-solicitation agreements into a single document or, if you are departing on semi-decent terms, they throw out the initial document and get you to sign a new agreement that invalidates the old one and only contains confidentiality and non-solictation agreements.

If amendment one passes this will change. Companies will still have the power to get you to sign whatever they put before you as you are on boarding. But, if you are an employee or independent contractor "in possession of selective or specialized skills, learning, or abilities or customer contacts or customer information", and nearly everyone reading FoG is, the covenant that you sign to not compete will be enforceable. You will be geographically and time limited in your next career move. 

If you are Jeff Leavitt you cannot start a DLA Piper branch.

If you are Michael Blake you cannot leave Adams Capital to join HA&W.

If you are Robert Sanders you cannot leave MindSpring to join cBeyond and then leave cBeyond to join EarthLink.

But more important to me is that amendment one will destroy technology startups in Georgia.

If you are Dave Williams you cannot start BLiNQ Media.

If you are Braxton Jarrett you cannot start Clearleap.

If you are Michael Cohn you cannot start CloudSherpas.

If you are Mike Van Bruinissee you cannot start PureWire.

If you are Jamie Gallo you cannot start RentWiki.

If you are David Payne you cannot start ScoutMob.

If you are Chris Rouland you cannot start Endgame Systems.

If amendment one was in place in 1995 MindSpring would never have happened.

If amendment one was in place in 1995 the people who left Internet Security Systems to establish the Atlanta Internet security cluster would not have been allowed to do so.

This is not the future that I want.

The only job of tomorrow that amendment one protects is your current one. It will decrease your career mobility. It will decrease the amount of money you earn. It will stifle the technology base in Georgia. It will kill innovation. It will decrease the number of technology startups.

I urge you to vote against it and to tell everyone that you know to do the same.

 

  |  Comments  |  Tweet  |  Posted in Politics, Startups

Georgians Should Vote No

For quite some time I have known that I was going to vote No on Amendment 1 on election day next Tuesday. I have kept pretty quiet about this personal decision. I tend to stay away from politics on FoG. The combination of a well funded vote Yes campaign complete with robocalls and an article by Atlanta attorneys Edward D. Buckley and Tom Stubbs led me to the conclusion that I needed to voice my opinion. For the moment I am publishing with permission from Mr. Buckley the article that inspired me to speak my piece. 

Georgia voters will soon be asked to vote on an amendment to the state constitution which is intentionally phrased to deceive them.

The language reads: “Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to make Georgia more economically competitive by authorizing legislation to uphold reasonable competitive agreements?”

This language is a lie on its face. The amendment does not make Georgia more competitive; it makes us less competitive by restricting the free flow of labor upon which that capitalism depends.

The proposed constitutional amendment will shackle employees to businesses, and strangle the present rights of employees to go out and work for competitors or start new competing businesses.

Voters who are employees of any kind, be they doctors, news people, engineers, mechanics or salespeople should rise up and vote “No” to this radical change to our state constitution.

You’d never know it by reading the ballot question, but the proposed constitutional amendment relates to “non-compete agreements.” Employers may already force non-compete agreements on employees — as long as the agreements are reasonably limited in time, geography and job description.

Under the Georgia Constitution, if an employer imposes unreasonable restrictions, such as banning former employees from working in their field of choice forever or everywhere or in all kinds of jobs, then our courts are required to strike the entire agreement. That process obviously encourages employers to err on the side of keeping the restrictions contained in non-competes reasonable and limited.

This legal framework has worked well for decades. For every non-compete that you see challenged and overturned due to its being overly broad in time, geography or job definition, hundreds, if not thousands, of properly and reasonably limited non-compete agreements are entered and enforced without a hitch every year.

Indeed, business-oriented publications such as Entrepreneur, Forbes, Chief Executive Magazine, and others have consistently ranked Georgia as one of the top states in the country for business. So, current law has worked well for business.

Big Business wants more, however. They want to erode even this minimal protection for employees. How? The proposed constitutional amendment — drafted by lawyers who work only for management — permits judges to edit, not just strike, overly broad non-compete agreements.

This innocent-sounding change totally tilts the table on non-competes to favor employers. If this proposed amendment passes, employers will be able to write every non-compete agreement overly broadly, because there is no threat of the entire agreement being stricken anymore.

The worst that can happen is that, at some distant time in the future, a  judge may make the employer use more reasonable restrictions in its non-compete agreement. In the meantime, employers can require an employee to sign these overly broad agreements or get fired, then fire them anyway.

The end result? Overly broad non-compete agreements dictate how and where many employees work. The economy loses because labor is prevented from flowing to the place where it is most productive. Consumers lose because entrepreneurs are prevented from leaving mediocre jobs to start their own businesses that offer better products and services.

Employees who don’t leave lose because they are stuck at jobs making less than they could make elsewhere. Employees who dare to make a break for new employment are likely to lose, as well. They will have to live under the overly broad restrictions for months, if not years, on the thin hope that the attorney they have to hire — at great expense — will some day get those restrictions eased.

The gain? Our already clogged courts gain even more lawsuits, and our judges gain power to become activists who make up and insert completely new terms into contracts.

Georgians should not surrender their constitutional rights to make way for this one-sided, pro-employer and anti-employee new law. This proposed amendment makes no sense whatsoever, but, at a time when unemployment is at record levels, it is especially wrongheaded.

Vote “no” to deceit. Vote “no” to anti-employee legislation. Vote “no” to Amendment One.

It’s a lie told to Georgia voters, and it’s a lie told to employees at a time when jobs are scarce. Free competition is a sacred American right. Vote “no” to Amendment One to preserve this right.

October 28, 2010  |  Comments  |  Tweet  |  Posted in Current Affairs, Politics

What Rapleaf Knows

Rapleaf is one of the companies involved with the latest Facebook privacy snafu. The company, an online data gathering firm of sorts, was linking specific Facebook user information that it obtained from Farmville, Texas HoldEm Poker, and the like to its own database of Internet users. Rapleaf also transmitted the Facebook IDs to about a dozen other firms according to the Wall Street Journal.

The Journal has been on a bit of a rampage against Rapleaf as part of the "What They Know" investigative series. Yesterday Emily Steel profiled 67 year old Linda Twombly who was quoted as saying "It is like a watchdog is watching me, and it is not good" when informed about her Rapleaf profile. That resulted in thousands of users deleting their Rapleaf profiles

The reaction from people when they learn about digital marketing is very bi-polar. The shock of Ms. Twombly on one end and the so what of the sophisticated Internet crowd on the other.  So what exactly is Rapleaf collecting and sharing?

Well a user can go to Rapleaf, register an account then see and manage their info. Here is what it shows for me with some commentary. The most notable aspect is that the data it is not that detailed and not that accurate.

Rapleaf Interests

Nothing really that telling. I am a bit surprised with displayed interest in animation and television. I hardly watch anything on TV that is not HBO and does not end with a score. Which makes me surprised there is no reference to sports.  

Raplead Demo

Pretty basic stuff. The age, sex, location, and marital status information is correct. I have two children and the income is off by a significant factor.

Rapleaf Online ProfileRapleaf seems a little consfused about where I have been working. Duplicates of some job activities. Some occupational information is missing. The social networks are dead on. Interesting that they do not have my blog info.

So while I really do not care so much for Rapleaf and dozens of other companies monitoring my activity every time I visit a web site this information seems both inaccurate and harmless to me. If you feel differently you can always go opt out. But to me sharing personal information with marketers that allows for free Internet applications and may one day result in a more personalized online experience is a tradeoff I am willing to make.

 

October 26, 2010  |  Comments  |  Tweet  |  Posted in Internet, Marketing

Paul Graham On Startup Funding

Paul Graham discusses the turmoil in the world of startup funding and the battle between super angels and venture capitalists at Startup School. Insightful analysis and a must view if you have any interest at all in the funding of technology startups.



Money quote: “The next couple of years is going to be a great time to raise money.” That does not quite apply yet in this neck of the woods.

October 22, 2010  |  Comments  |  Tweet  |  Posted in Angels, Entrepreneurship, Startups, Venture Capital