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

161–170 of 179 posts

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

#161

Post by jegutman »

hueving wrote: post #113
tracker1 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What are you talking about? I was pointing out how expensive SF is and how you might hit a 15% higher food cost in Hawaii than SF. But that will be offset by the massive amount you will save in rent.

Also this seems to suggest that honolulu is the 5th most expensive city in north america: https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/honolulu

I imagine smaller parts of hawaii are even more expensive because they're probably more touristy.

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

#162

Post by m3talridl3y »

jebblue wrote: post #92
tracker1 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cour…

I always found it odd that houses have one job - to keep varmint out, and they fail so miserably

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

#163

Post by skarap »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #158
mcv wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

12 months is extreme. But it's extreme for both sides.

If the company goes under, good luck getting a year of pay from them. It is better than many deals, but still seems to favor the employer for the reason most laws do, which is that when a deal is between a person and a company, the law never treats them the same and the company gets what I always see to be the favorable treatment (for example, company can't go to jail).

It's not always true, at least not everywhere. E.g. in my country (Armenia) the employee can leave whenever they like with just a two week's notice (except in situations when they have some central/important role in the organization - in that cases it's 1 month). The employer on the other hand has almost no way to fire someone if he doesn't have very good reasons for that (e.g. lost trust in employee). Mass layoffs are allowed if there is some global change (technology, economy, ..). In that cases the notice period in 3 months.

I guess we inherited this from the USSR (where corporate interest was not a thing) and just didn't have time to change yet.

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

#164

Post by danielweber »

tcheard wrote: post #45
danielweber wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IP assignment can be non-compete. Had one company give me a non-compete and IP agreement that said they owned all the stuff I invent while working there or for 12 months after I stopped working there.

So what? If I work for Tech Company A (that develops products in one market area), and leave to go to Tech Company B (that develops products in a completely separate market. ie. They don't compete in any way for market share), everything I do for Company B in the 12 months after leaving Company A, actually belongs to Company A?

Yes, if company A wants to pursue it. Is company B really going to want to invite that trouble?

Any product company insists on clean IP rights. 'pg tells a story of how this nearly brought down an early acquisition he was involved in (perhaps Viaweb) because they didn't have a proper IP assignment from one employee.

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

#165

Post by benjohnson »

djur wrote: post #118
benjohnson wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What I reacted to was the suggestion that > it also has the side effect of diminishing job prospects is a good or desirable thing.

I'm making the attempt at being brutally honest. I share this as honesty as well as I can with my employees - as they understand the career and employment pitfalls of being the "PostgreSQL on ARM32 FreeBSD 9.1 dude" as opposed to the "I can figure out [anything]SQL on [anthing] dude"

I supposes I could sugar coat things - but given that I'm hiring really smart people they'll figure it out and won't trust me one bit.

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

#166

Post by lsllc »

robot22 wrote: post #85
sib wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Washington and Massachusetts (states with significant high-tech employee bases) are also very friendly to employers in enforcing non-competes. (IANAL)

I can't speak for Massachussetts, but in Washington state non-competes have to be narrowly tailored resulting in them being relatively hard to enforce.

Looks like there are some new moves afoot to try once more to restrict or ban non-competes. Sadly there are many older, established tech companies in MA [with deep lobbying pockets] that oppose this.

http://www.betaboston.com/news/2015/06/23/tech-sector-to-rev...

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

#167

Post by fapjacks »

mjcohen wrote: post #156
fapjacks wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel sorry for you, needing to resort to those kinds of statements. Whatever made you that way, please know that life gets better, and it's possible to draw inspiration for positive change from many different things around you. It'll get better, buddy, I promise.

Until our civilization collapses. Then it will get better for all except humanity.

The only constant is change. I'm at peace. Unlike the other guy up there. Take a look at his posting history. This is where my comment comes from.

You know, this is going to be downvoted because it's a truth that a lot of the Rand worshipers hate to hear, but people like that guy up there? Essentially, they are the weak betas of the community. People like that with the means to do good in the community around them, provide for people that can't provide for themselves, but can only see as far as their own greed will allow. It is a sign of extreme weakness, stemming from some personal trauma like child abuse or something of this nature. And hence my response, because they have built these huge walls between them and the communities they rely on to survive, externalizing as anger the pain that they suffered in their lives, whatever it was. I really do feel sorry for the guy. He must be suffering with all that anger and hatred. It does get better, though. Usually through significant humanizing events like the death of a loved one, or similar.

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

#168

Post by dredmorbius »

mathattack wrote: post #150
dredmorbius wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are several. Smith noted Hobbes's truism: wealth is power. You might be thinking of the logic of collective action, Mancur Olsen.

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

#169

Post by javert »

fapjacks wrote: post #167
mjcohen wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until our civilization collapses. Then it will get better for all except humanity.

The only constant is change. I'm at peace. Unlike the other guy up there. Take a look at his posting history. This is where my comment comes from. You know, this is going to be downvoted because it's a truth that a lot of the Rand worshipers hate to hear, but people like that guy up there? Essentially, they are the weak betas of the community. People like that with the means to do good in the community around them, p…

Rather than responding to my point intellectually, you instead accuse me of being abused as a child and state that perhaps the death of one of my loved ones would "fix" me.

There is nothing in my posting history that would even remoltely justify anything you have said here.

Your theories about my psychology are based on nothing and are totally wrong.

This post is incredibly inappropriate.

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

#170

Post by fapjacks »

javert wrote: post #169
fapjacks wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only constant is change. I'm at peace. Unlike the other guy up there. Take a look at his posting history. This is where my comment comes from. You know, this is going to be downvoted because it's a truth that a lot of the Rand worshipers hate to hear, but people like that guy up there? Essentially, they are the weak betas of the community. People like that with the means to do good in the community around them, p…

Rather than responding to my point intellectually, you instead accuse me of being abused as a child and state that perhaps the death of one of my loved ones would "fix" me. There is nothing in my posting history that would even remoltely justify anything you have said here. Your theories about my psychology are based on nothing and are totally wrong. This post is incredibly inappropriate.

Let this be a lesson for you: This is what your comments sound like almost everywhere you post. None of my comments to you are any less insane than the kinds of comments you make almost exclusively. If it really were an issue of responding intellectually, you would have a history of doing so, instead of the drivel you paint across HN. You're pretty clearly trolling; you reap what you sow. Let this serve as a moment of introspection for you. You clearly need it. (And also, I really do mean that things will get better for you. You're young, and it may not seem like it now, but they will.)
Post reply on HN