Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 291 posts

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#281

Post by kyllo »

santaclaus wrote: post #278
kyllo wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term "Right to Work" doesn't mean that employment contracts are required. Right to Work is a euphemistic term for "employees cannot be required to join a labor union." Totally different issue. Many states are both "At Will" and "Right to Work." All US states implement "At Will" employment but some states have exceptions to the rule.

> Right to Work is a euphemistic term for "employees cannot be required to join a labor union." I thought forcing someone to join a labor union as a condition of employment was illegal under Taft-Hartley across the entire U.S.? One can be required to pay agency fees to unions for contract negotiations, however.

Taft-Hartley outlawed closed shops but did not outlaw union shops:

A pre-entry closed shop is a form of union security agreement under which the employer agrees to hire union members only, and employees must remain members of the union at all times in order to remain employed. This is different from a post-entry closed shop (US:union shop), which is an agreement requiring all employees to join the union if they are not already members. In a union shop, the union must accept as a member any person hired by the employer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop

A union shop is a form of a union security clause under which the employer agrees to hire either labor union members or nonmembers but all non-union employees must become union members within a specified period of time or lose their jobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop

A Right to Work law is a state law that outlaws Union Shops in that particular state as well.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#282

Post by vacri »

johnward wrote: post #199
vacri wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, the idea of unionising IT folks often gives me a chuckle.

Why?

Because IT folks are generally very well-paid to begin with; have strong individualistic tendencies; have a very, very wide range of skills that aren't easily equatable; and frequently job-hop for better offers rather than bedding down. And mostly, it's an industry with a very strong negotiate-your-own-paypacket ethos.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#283

Post by 6t6t6 »

USNetizen wrote: post #193
rmc wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my state, employers can fire employees for any reason, so there was nothing stopping them from firing me for not signing. At will employment screws over us white collar, high end, knowledge worker. Here in many states in Europe, there's no at will, and if your employer is bought, then they have to give you a job on the same, or better, conditions. At will is bad for tech workers.

I'd much rather own/operate a business in an At Will environment. If someone isn't performing, you don't have to worry about tens of thousands of dollars (or more) in legal fees to defend your decision to get rid of them. Add to that all of the lost productivity and taxes paid funding a position for someone who is wholly incapable and then having to create a year-long paper trail to back up a decision you came to as…

The problem is who defines what is under-performing. For some employers, not performing may mean not wiling to assist to meetings at 8 pm or taking job related phone calls on weekend.

In many European countries it is possible to fire a worker who is not performing, but the employer needs to prove the reasons, and also which steps have been done in order to correct the situation before taking the decision to fire this person.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#284

Post by throwaway549328 »

ghaff wrote: post #254
throwaway549328 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were you and in California I would ignore anything related to non-compete without feeling any need to modify it, as I heard from multiple sources that they're totally unenforceable: http://ymsllp.com/news-and-publications/with-limited-excepti... and also against the cultural spirit people actually believe in. It's as though that stuff weren't present at all. If you're outside California, I would in your position…

One of the problems--if the non-compete is with a large company--is that a lot of potential companies that you might go to work for will walk as soon as they find out you have a non-compete. I worked for a small firm for a number of years and we passed on a couple of hires because they had broad non-competes that could have at least theoretically applied to us. As far as our business office was concerned, it just was…

I'm unclear where you learned that the employee had signed such a contract, especially if in that jurisdiction they are not bound by it. Did you ask to see copies of their past employment contract? I would feel zero obligation to mention this to my future employer if it doesn't apply in my jurisdiction.

It's like, if I had signed a non-contract stating I'm now a slave, I'd just ignore that contract. (What I'm saying applies to California.) Certain things just don't have any legal significance. (Such as indentured servitude.)

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#285

Post by throwaway549328 »

johnward wrote: post #268
ghaff wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the problems--if the non-compete is with a large company--is that a lot of potential companies that you might go to work for will walk as soon as they find out you have a non-compete. I worked for a small firm for a number of years and we passed on a couple of hires because they had broad non-competes that could have at least theoretically applied to us. As far as our business office was concerned, it just was…

Even though the chances of the broad non-compete actually being enforceable are low the threat of being tied up in a litigation is real and expensive. My gut feeling is that they would not enforce it on lowly engineer like myself but if they did I couldn't afford to actually fight it.

wouldn't they sue the employee in question (the poster, or me in that situation) rather than the employer? How are you at fault for hiring someone with a non-compete you didn't know about... what is there to sue you over?

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#286

Post by ghaff »

throwaway549328 wrote: post #285
johnward wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even though the chances of the broad non-compete actually being enforceable are low the threat of being tied up in a litigation is real and expensive. My gut feeling is that they would not enforce it on lowly engineer like myself but if they did I couldn't afford to actually fight it.

wouldn't they sue the employee in question (the poster, or me in that situation) rather than the employer? How are you at fault for hiring someone with a non-compete you didn't know about... what is there to sue you over?

In the scenario I gave, the potential new employer did know about the non-compete and chose not to hire as a result--whether or not the non-compete would actually have applied. How did we know? We asked as I was asked when I was hired at that company.

That said, in lawsuits, lots of people and organizations tend to get sucked in whether they deserve to be or not. The bottom line is that non-competes have significant chilling effects whether or not lawsuits are ultimately filed.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#287

Post by rmc »

kyllo wrote: post #195
USNetizen wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd much rather own/operate a business in an At Will environment. If someone isn't performing, you don't have to worry about tens of thousands of dollars (or more) in legal fees to defend your decision to get rid of them. Add to that all of the lost productivity and taxes paid funding a position for someone who is wholly incapable and then having to create a year-long paper trail to back up a decision you came to as…

The term "Right to Work" doesn't mean that employment contracts are required. Right to Work is a euphemistic term for "employees cannot be required to join a labor union." Totally different issue. Many states are both "At Will" and "Right to Work." All US states implement "At Will" employment but some states have exceptions to the rule.

Likewise in EU/CoE. There is a right to form and join a trade union, and that extends to not joining a trade union. However no-where in EU has "at will" employment.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#288

Post by rmc »

USNetizen wrote: post #193
rmc wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my state, employers can fire employees for any reason, so there was nothing stopping them from firing me for not signing. At will employment screws over us white collar, high end, knowledge worker. Here in many states in Europe, there's no at will, and if your employer is bought, then they have to give you a job on the same, or better, conditions. At will is bad for tech workers.

I'd much rather own/operate a business in an At Will environment. If someone isn't performing, you don't have to worry about tens of thousands of dollars (or more) in legal fees to defend your decision to get rid of them. Add to that all of the lost productivity and taxes paid funding a position for someone who is wholly incapable and then having to create a year-long paper trail to back up a decision you came to as…

> I'd much rather own/operate a business in an At Will environment.

Laws that are good for employees are usually disliked by employers.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#289

Post by rmc »

danielvinson wrote: post #229
smitherfield wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tech workers over here are paid about twice as much (before taxes!) as tech workers in Europe, so I'm not terribly worked up about US employment law. All those regulations aren't free, and one way or another the cost comes out of your disposable income.

Do you have a source for that? I work for a large international company with engineering teams in many countries including European and American ones, and the workers in Europe generally make a bit more than the ones over here. Small sample size, but I feel like you are comparing a small subset of workers (Developers in SF/NYC) to a large one (Developers in all of Europe).

I'm European, and have seen numerous anecdotal numbers of salaries in US companies, and it seems much higher than what I'd expect to get here.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#290

Post by johnward »

throwaway549328 wrote: post #285
johnward wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even though the chances of the broad non-compete actually being enforceable are low the threat of being tied up in a litigation is real and expensive. My gut feeling is that they would not enforce it on lowly engineer like myself but if they did I couldn't afford to actually fight it.

wouldn't they sue the employee in question (the poster, or me in that situation) rather than the employer? How are you at fault for hiring someone with a non-compete you didn't know about... what is there to sue you over?

Probably, but employers don't want to invest in hiring someone that could be taken away. Even if the new employer is not involved in anyway they could get sucked into the legal battle and then have to pay to prove they have nothing to do with it. After all you don't have to actually be guilty of anything to be involved in a lawsuit. Also it's possible there is a non-poach agreement if the new employer is a customer of the old employer. In my case a client cannot poach me if I have worked on their project in the past 2 years. Then there are those illegal non-poach agreements...
Post reply on HN