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

Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

casetext.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 179 posts

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#71

Post by geomark »

benjohnson wrote: post #43
hueving wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the reason some employers want them is because they don't want to put the effort into building up an employees skills just to have them move to a different company right when they become useful. When you are an employee under these laws, you tend to put a lot more thought into choosing a company you would be willing to stay with as long as you are interested in that section of the industry.

It's a valid concern - that by training your employees and giving them experience, you make then so valuable that they can leave. I fight this problem several ways: I turn our services into a products so that I can onboard people quickly and drive down costs - for example instead of telling each employees to setup a backup on a server, I had one employee make a script that we can deploy on all new servers. By turning…

That last point may sound evil to some people who want the employee to hold all the cards. But it is the classic division-of-labor approach that increases productivity in any undertaking. And it's a win-win since you can charge more and pay more.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#72

Post by themartorana »

josefdlange wrote: post #51

Excellent. If you want your employees to stay, and to contribute their ideas to you instead of running off to your competitors or starting their own companies, it's so so so much better to just treat your employees better than the bind them legally.

I always found it weird when employers wanted to start a relationship entirely adversarially. I also found it weird when businesses identified employees as a significant and therefore negative cost center.

Employees are life blood. If they aren't, get rid of them and get new life blood - but being so standoffish and adversarial is the antithesis of what an employer/employee relationship should be.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#73

Post by x0x0 »

gtrubetskoy wrote: post #24

As I understand it, non-competes are very hard to enforce and are more of an intimidation tactic than anything else. You cannot be prevented from earning a living the only way you know how given the demand for your skills. If you're bound by a non-compete and the only (or the best) job available is with the competition, you shouldn't be afraid to take it, and the courts will side with you if someone goes after you (w…

1 - I lost a job in nyc when counsel at the new company decided my old company was too close because they both did internet advertising

2 - intimidation works quite well up to your ability to front giant legal expenses. While stuff may or may not be unreasonable, most of us aren't in a position to front tens of thousands of dollars that you probably won't get back.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#74

Post by Asbostos »

tracker1 wrote: post #53
wheaties wrote: post #3

Wish NY did the same. In NY they get to own all your ideas both at work and "off the clock."

I cross/line out any portion of employment agreements that say such things... I've never had any push back about it.

I first discovered this flexibility signing up for a simple warehouse laboring job while I was a student. It had a "don't work in our industry for a year" type clause. I expressed some concern about that and the boss just crossed it out. These things look formal and rigid but they're not set in stone.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#75

Post by SilasX »

gtrubetskoy wrote: post #24

As I understand it, non-competes are very hard to enforce and are more of an intimidation tactic than anything else. You cannot be prevented from earning a living the only way you know how given the demand for your skills. If you're bound by a non-compete and the only (or the best) job available is with the competition, you shouldn't be afraid to take it, and the courts will side with you if someone goes after you (w…

I just wish that misrepresenting someone's legal rights or the enforceability of a contract were itself illegal.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#77

Post by ma2rten »

benjohnson wrote: post #43
hueving wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the reason some employers want them is because they don't want to put the effort into building up an employees skills just to have them move to a different company right when they become useful. When you are an employee under these laws, you tend to put a lot more thought into choosing a company you would be willing to stay with as long as you are interested in that section of the industry.

It's a valid concern - that by training your employees and giving them experience, you make then so valuable that they can leave. I fight this problem several ways: I turn our services into a products so that I can onboard people quickly and drive down costs - for example instead of telling each employees to setup a backup on a server, I had one employee make a script that we can deploy on all new servers. By turning…

it also has the side effect of diminishing job prospects.

What exactly do you mean? In my experience companies often try to hire people with specific skills instead of generalists (which btw is a mistake imo, smart people will be able to pick up the skill in question).

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#78

Post by mathattack »

jacobheller wrote: post #55

A really good book to read on the subject is AnnaLee Saxenian's Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 ( http://www.amazon.com/Regional-Advantage-Culture-Competition... ). It discusses why Route 128 failed while Silicon Valley flourished. A major part is that under California law, non-competes are not enforceable in California. As people moved freely between competing companies, t…

Yes - this is an instance where a law can help an ecosystem at the expense of individual players. In aggregate though, it's net neutral for most companies, since they benefit from being able to hire from competitors. The companies doing interesting things probably benefit, while the ones doing boring things get a little hurt.

The (largely untrained) economist in me says that mobility of labor is very important for growth and economic efficiency, as systems work best when the best people flock to the most important well funded ideas.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#79

Post by Tsagadai »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #35
benjohnson wrote: post #19

As an employer, I'm quite fine with this - as the law still allows for an agreement to be made about soliciting clients. If relationship with an employee and my company sours, all I really care about is that poor relationship not transferring to the relationship between my company and my clients. Artificially locking ourselves into to a bad employer/employee relationship does nobody any good.

Your problem is when someone you have a good relationship with is seduced by something hotter and sexier.

Romantic relationships are also not somewhere where people should be punished for leaving because they were seduced by someone hotter and sexier either. People are not owned by anyone but themselves.
Post reply on HN