Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by kyllo » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 1:18 PM UTC

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…

This is but one of many tactics employers will use to try to decrease their own employees' value on the open labor market.

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

#142

Post by spacecowboy_lon » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 1:25 PM UTC

new1234567 wrote: post #137

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…

It's not a net neutral for most companies. It's a huge benefit for all the companies in that area. Skilled professionals have a choice of region and company to work in. IF they choose one with better terms for them, then that region will have a more skilled pool of workers. This benefits companies in that region. One could argue that the stronger ecosystem and pool of employees creates significant benefits that outwe…

Which is a good argument for taking employment law away from the states having 52 slightly different sets of laws is not efficient.

Of course this would probably reduce the number of HR roles but hey you cant make an omelet without breaking some eggs :-)

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

#143

Post by spacecowboy_lon » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 1:28 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #104

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.

Then the responsible directors should have been banned for life as not fit and proper persons to be directors of a company.

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

#144

Post by sillygeese » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 1:32 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #128

sillygeese wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also found it weird when businesses identified employees as a significant and therefore negative cost center But they are pretty much the biggest cost center for any employer? I'm not saying employees should not be valued and treated well, but salaries add up to a lot of money.

Yes, employees are expensive, but they're also the companies biggest assets. It's worth treating them well. Without them, you're nothing. If a company wants loyalty from their employees, they have to demonstrate their own loyalty towards their employees first. Edit: maybe calling employees assets is wrong, because you don't own or control them. The relationships with your employees (and those with your customers) are…

> It's worth treating them well.

Again, I agree.

> Without them, you're nothing.

Plenty of lifestyle business owners would beg to differ.

> If a company wants loyalty from their employees, they have to demonstrate their own loyalty towards their employees first.

How? What's loyalty in this context anyway? Working your ass off for your employer? Or perhaps not firing someone even though he's holding your business back? I would recommend neither.

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

#145

Post by spacecowboy_lon » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 1:34 PM UTC

njharman wrote: post #139

dia80 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This only possible because companies want to be able to fire their employees quickly so that means the employees can leave quickly. I know of one place (in the UK) with a one year notice term. You can't leave quickly so their business is secure but you are secure too as they have to give 12 months notice before letting you go.

How is this enforceable? Do they get constables to round you up and handcuff you to desk? What if they just sit there all day doing nothing, they can't be fired for 1 yr? I can't imagine anything forcing someone to work. I can see something like loose retirement, stock options, whatever if not giving 1 yr notice.

In the UK they would sue you for breach of contract - In reality a compromise agreement would be reached.

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

#146

Post by spacecowboy_lon » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 1:37 PM UTC

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.

Ah so Taxi companies should be protected against Uber then.

or like how France claimed that a yogurt maker was CNI to avoid a takeover recently

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

#147

Post by wahsd » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 1:46 PM UTC

Are there any clear and concise sources regarding non-compete and non-solicitation clauses and their enforceability in various states? Basically, some kind of primer on the topic?

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

#148

Post by mcv » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 1:57 PM UTC

sillygeese wrote: post #144

mcv wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, employees are expensive, but they're also the companies biggest assets. It's worth treating them well. Without them, you're nothing. If a company wants loyalty from their employees, they have to demonstrate their own loyalty towards their employees first. Edit: maybe calling employees assets is wrong, because you don't own or control them. The relationships with your employees (and those with your customers) are…

> It's worth treating them well. Again, I agree. > Without them, you're nothing. Plenty of lifestyle business owners would beg to differ. > If a company wants loyalty from their employees, they have to demonstrate their own loyalty towards their employees first. How? What's loyalty in this context anyway? Working your ass off for your employer? Or perhaps not firing someone even though he's holding your business back…

You seem to have a very limited view of employer-employee relationships. Work is a big part of our life, but not all of it. We don't live to work, but work to live. Just acknowledging that would go a long way. Give employees the room they need to get their lives in order if they need it. Don't work them til they drop, but give them a healthy amount of vacation time, and only ask them to work overtime in extreme cases. Make sure they're happy. Invest in their training. Don't screw them over. Don't treat them as expendable resources. And when someone is holding your business back, maybe figure out why that is, before you blindly fire him.

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

#149

Post by omouse » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 2:15 PM UTC

I wish this would happen in Ontario; I know a judge struck down a non-compete/non-solicit clause in one case but employers still stick that shit in.

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

#150

Post by mathattack » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 2:27 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #103

srean wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

There's an economics term for this, though I'm spacing on the name. It's the same reason the taxi lobby is so strong - it's a subset of 1 issue voters with concentrated financial support of key issues. It's also behind why tax loopholes are so hard to close - a small subset cares a lot, but the masses less so.