The end of non-competes in Massachusetts?

Don't hold your breath.

Boston Globe columnist and champion of local entrepreneurs Scott Kirsner took up the cause of Massachusetts competitiveness in his column today, Start-ups stifled by noncompetes.

Since last summer's Berkman panel on the issue a growing body of evidence has shown that non-competes are inimical to economic growth. Paul Maeder of Highland Capital presented a model (right) showing how the negative effect of non-competes compounds over time. More recently Matt Marx of the Harvard Business School documented how Michigan's enforcement of non-competes reduced job mobility there.

There is some hope on the horizon with a bill introduced in the Massachusetts House to restrict non-competes. Unfortunately, it doesn't go nearly as far as the California statute which has outlawed non-competion agreements there.

Consider the law in California: 

Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which
anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or
business of any kind is to that extent void.

The California law does make some exceptions around the selling of a business, but is much more comprehensive than the proposed Massachusetts version, which goes on for several pages and merely requires non-competes not go "beyond that necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests. There's a very informative Web site on this issue at www.prohibitrestrictiveemploymentcovenants.net.

And you can find out how to contact your elected officials at www.wheredoivotema.com/bal/myelectioninfo.php.