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

101–110 of 179 posts

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

#101

Post by bmelton »

elevenfist wrote: post #98
bmelton wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Corpo…

I dunno what gives you the impression that I've missed that point, really, but the scope of your message, which comes across to me as "perhaps we could slightly restructure the rights and responsibilities of corporations to better fit what we see as their role in society" is dramatically different from "Corporate Personhood is such a horrible idea that it just doesn't make any sense at all."

Both statements are equally true, as is my rebuttal. We perhaps could reframe the rights of corporations, but abolishing personhood would likely make the situation far worse than it makes anything better, as we then lose the ability to enter contracts with or sue corporations.

Much of the abilities of corporations that stem from personhood are commensurate with their other roles. I personally don't see a problem with corporations having representation, as those same corporations are otherwise bound by the laws of the land. Despite the "Wal-Mart is not a person" rhetoric, it's worth noting that many corporations are sole proprietorships, or, rephrased, people, and if they have the responsibility of obeying the whimsy of the legislature in the myriad regulations they are responsible to perform (worth noting, corporate responsibilities are typically far more burdensome than personal responsibilities) that they have the right to speak out against that whimsy where they wish.

That isn't to suggest that my word is definite, and there's definitely wiggle room to restructure, but as it stands, corporations have burdens, and knee jerk responses neither obviate nor necessarily better the proportionality of their rights in response to those burdens. Ut totum, abolishing personhood is, I think, as horrible an idea as mandatory mediation.

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

#102

Post by bmelton »

takeda wrote: post #99
bmelton wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What I meant, specifically, was that "protect people" is in the sense that if corporations did not have personhood, then we could not sue them.

Large hospital accidentally chops off both your legs? Too bad, suckah. Can't sue.

Yes, it also protects the employees and board members of said company from personal responsibility sometimes, and that is indeed a feature of personhood, but it also protects the consumers of a corporation's products, whether we realize it or not.

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

#103

Post by dredmorbius »

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's less that capital is more important and more that it's inherently more concentrated, and hence, more capable of expressing its political will.

A dynamic pointed out quite explicitly by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations.

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

#104

Post by dredmorbius »

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…

And in response, California firms repeatedly engaged in (illegal) noncompete and anti-poaching collusion to both drive down wages and limit labour mobility.

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

#106

Post by benjohnson »

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 wasn't clear enough - by investing time and energy into simplifying our mundane services into a product, we're able to expand into more interesting projects - and we have the profitability to do charity work and blue sky work.

I'm certain that there are employees that like rote work, but for me, I can't stand it and project that onto others.

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

#107

Post by colanderman »

lgleason wrote: post #50

Good for Hawaii! Georgia went the other way. My advice to anybody is to not sign them if you are asked to. They are bad for everybody.

Doesn't work in my experience. I started not too long ago at a startup whose founder actively publicly campaigns against non-competes. Yet there was still a non-compete in my employment contract, and they wouldn't let me strike it, presumably due to pressure from their lawyers regarding potential investors.

They have laudably since removed the clause, even retroactively from current employees' contracts, but it just goes to show how little bargaining power employees have in the arena of employment contracts.

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

#109

Post by benjohnson »

ma2rten wrote: post #77
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…

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).

I certainly agree that smart people will quickly develop!

Based on the small size of the company, I must hire people who are intelligent and yet are passed over by the job market because they can't display that with a degree or job experience, and I've found your assertion to be true.

You're probably correct - perhaps given that we pay well and hold fast to 40 hours- it's more likely that there's not much incentive to leave.

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

#110

Post by kabouseng »

michaelochurch wrote: post #61
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…

Non-competes aren't there to be enforced, but to make the person stinky to future employers. A decent company will cover legal expenses and, in the extreme outlier case, judgments-- and an indecent one will fire you, but you probably won't get sued in either case. The effect of a non-compete on a star hire is relatively small, but if you're an entry-level engineer, the difference between $85,000 per year and $85,000…

Except that the junior engineer's old company won't sue because he is just a junior engineer...

The non-compete risk probably comes only with the star hires / client facing employees (risk of clients being lured to the other company).

Post reply on HN