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

91–100 of 179 posts

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

#91

Post by aidenn0 »

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.

One company I worked for definitely pushed back on that.

Since it was in California it was fairly narrow (only if you used company resources, or if it was related to company products). I also had zero trouble getting sign-off for any open-source projects I wanted to contribute to.

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

#92

Post by jebblue »

tracker1 wrote: post #58
hueving wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cost of stuff is only important if you spend all of your money on stuff. With a tech salary, the cost of food going up 15% should be nothing compared to the rent you will save.

You think the cost of food is only 15% more? That's funny.. still not enough to offset the cost of housing in SF though. Been looking at moving out to San Jose (to work in Los Gatos, that's expensive to live in), and need to make about 75% more to offset the cost of housing and taxes than I do in Phoenix. I totally understand why some large companies would put their IT hubs in Texas or Arizona now. Relative to the co…

>> I don't want to be outside in June, July or August though.

There's also rattlesnakes, scorpions and Giant Redhead Centipedes: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/texas-wildlife-offi...

We had a rattlesnake sun bathing in our back yard, we've killed 2 of those centipedes in our garage and 2 or 3 scorpions in the house (always look in your shoes).

There's also the red ants, vicious little creatures then of course the drought years followed by a flood year or two.

And don't get me started on allergies.

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

#93

Post by wtallis »

SilasX wrote: post #75
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.

It's hard to be certain of the enforceability of terms unless you've already got the judge in your pocket, and it's easy to put "to the extent allowable by law" everywhere.

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

#94

Post by elevenfist »

Spivak wrote: post #83
benjohnson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I fight this problem several ways This is completely, totally, and nonsensically evil that I'm not sure even where to begin. Supposing your company hired me and I knew this was the opinion of anyone who worked in management I would be polishing my résumé my first day on the job. This is the best way to make sure that the only people working for you are mindless drones and your HR office is a revolving door rather t…

I have yet to ever interview for, or interact with/work for, an employer in high-tech Silicon Valley who did not obviously (to me) share these beliefs. Could you talk a little more about your experiences?

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

#95

Post by crimsonalucard »

Tsagadai wrote: post #79
crimsonalucard wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Man, did I ever say people needed to be "punished"? No. All I said is that it happens. Did I say it was right or wrong or that people are owned by other people? No. I never said any of those things. You made an assumption, and I'm sorry to say, you're utterly and completely wrong.

All this analogy implies is that an employee can be seduced by a newer, trendier, higher salary startup.

Stop forcing your preconceived opinions and assumptions down my throat.

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

#96

Post by mathattack »

srean wrote: post #88
mathattack wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gr…

Thanks. You touch upon one of my pet peeves. A huge amount of legislative energy is spent to ensure that capital can move around unfettered. On the contrary, movement of skill and intellectual property seems purposefully hindered. Implicitly it says that capital is much more important than the others, I simply disagree.

It helps for capital to have cheaper labor, and vice versa. :-) The system grows best when both are free. (Incidentally, this is also why I'm ok with stock buybacks. If companies can't put their money to good use, retire the stock and let people invest it elsewhere)

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

#97

Post by Spooky23 »

MrTonyD wrote: post #30

I think there needs to be some middle ground. What is completely ignored by such an "all or nothing" law is the trade-offs required in order to create a high quality of life for individuals while also thinking of our society overall. It is in society's interest for some industries to be protected - in order to avoid low-cost competitors and worse employers. We are over-reacting.

Trade offs don't work with fundamental rights. You should be able to practice your profession anywhere, and FUD surrounding the ability to hire top talent yay depresses wages across industries.

It is not in societies interest to bond employee to employer, ever.

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

#98

Post by elevenfist »

bmelton wrote: post #66
tracker1 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to establish a constitutional amendment that explicitly states that non-living entities (companies, corporations, etc) are not legally allowed to express opinions in so far as they donate to PACs or directly to campaigns. Also, that the congress or the states may limit the rights that non-living entities have beyond what an individual who works for or owns a non-living entity has. "Corporate Personhoo…

On the contrary, if corporations didn't have personhood, we could not sue them when they did wrong, or enter into contracts with them. Personhood has its own challenges for sure, but it originates more to protect people than it does to advantage corporations.

The point that's being missed in this discussion is that corporations are abstract entities defined by the state and society, ideally for society's benefit (otherwise why the hell would or should they exist, and also the original corp was for public benefit). These abstract entities can be given attributes, rights, relationships, etc. as needed, but they do not have any inherent properties in and of themselves.

Corporate personhood is an analogy, and a poor one at that. Many of the properties we assign to personhood are not suitable for corporations.

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

#99

Post by takeda »

bmelton wrote: post #66
tracker1 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to establish a constitutional amendment that explicitly states that non-living entities (companies, corporations, etc) are not legally allowed to express opinions in so far as they donate to PACs or directly to campaigns. Also, that the congress or the states may limit the rights that non-living entities have beyond what an individual who works for or owns a non-living entity has. "Corporate Personhoo…

On the contrary, if corporations didn't have personhood, we could not sue them when they did wrong, or enter into contracts with them. Personhood has its own challenges for sure, but it originates more to protect people than it does to advantage corporations.

I think you should note that "protect people" is in the sense that instead of suing CEO & board members you're suing the company. So it doesn't affect them personally.

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

#100

Post by aidenn0 »

bmelton wrote: post #66
tracker1 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to establish a constitutional amendment that explicitly states that non-living entities (companies, corporations, etc) are not legally allowed to express opinions in so far as they donate to PACs or directly to campaigns. Also, that the congress or the states may limit the rights that non-living entities have beyond what an individual who works for or owns a non-living entity has. "Corporate Personhoo…

On the contrary, if corporations didn't have personhood, we could not sue them when they did wrong, or enter into contracts with them. Personhood has its own challenges for sure, but it originates more to protect people than it does to advantage corporations.

Corporate personhood protects individuals at the company and limits the liability of shareholders. I think there are positive indirect benefits to the economy at large, but I would certainly think that the direct benefits are clearly in favor of the owners and executives of the corporation.
Post reply on HN