Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it? • Hacker News Board

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#31

Post by hristov » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 2:29 AM UTC

eru wrote: post #17

> The best argument against noncompetes is about freedom > [...] there should be a presumption in favor of preserving people's freedom to join a new company or start one of their own. Alas, as nice as it is to cloth an issue we care about in the language of moral superiority, banning noncompete agreements does in fact impact the freedom of contract. (In the same way, but to a lesser extent, than the ban on being able…

Of course there is a freedom argument to it. The freedom to contract line of reasoning is faulty because it ignores relative bargaining power or desparation.

When you are worried you won't be able to pay the rent you are not likely to care much about non-competes and you will get yourself into a bad situation.

To use your extreme example, people that did give themselves into slavery (and yes this used to happen during roman times), usually did it because of hunger and desparation. And because living in a country that has widespread slavery it was impossible to get paid for most labor. Certainly they would have preferred if Rome had banned slavery and even had a minimum wage. Then they would be able to do similar work but be paid for it. I doubt they would have worried much that banning slavery limited their freedom to contract. In fact they would practically have much more freedom in a world that banned slavery, as they would be ordinary employees that would be free to do as they wished in their free time.

Well thought out worker protection laws do improve freedom for ordinary workers despite the technical reduction to the freedom to contract. The "freedom to contract" argument tends to get peddled by people and entities that have all the bargaining power.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#32

Post by dietrichepp » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 2:43 AM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #18

The headline kind of has the valence of government activity backwards, though I agree with its policy proposal. Other states don't restrict job-hopping, they just stand by and don't interfere as the free market ends up having the effect of restricting job-hopping. Employees end up signing restrictive employment contracts, and states don't prohibit them from doing so. California has made a conscious decision that the…

You say "free market" but the only reason other states work that way is because the courts enforce non-compete agreements. The state has a monopoly on court judgments, after all. In the same way we can say that the 19th century US didn't "restrict" freedoms, it merely "allowed people to own slaves". I'm not saying the comparison is apt, but it's easy to flip around words and say that "California prevents companies from preventing you from working for competitors" instead of "California does not enforce private non-compete contracts".

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#33

Post by nitwit005 » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 2:43 AM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #18

The headline kind of has the valence of government activity backwards, though I agree with its policy proposal. Other states don't restrict job-hopping, they just stand by and don't interfere as the free market ends up having the effect of restricting job-hopping. Employees end up signing restrictive employment contracts, and states don't prohibit them from doing so. California has made a conscious decision that the…

Enforcement of contracts is always government intervention. It's a regulation of business, forcing people to stick to their word on certain issues, despite obvious economic reasons not to.

Not enforcing some contracts is less intervention, not more.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#34

Post by vasilipupkin » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 2:46 AM UTC

My understanding is, non competes that do not pay you to stay out of the job market are unenforceable in many states, for example, in Illinois.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#35

Post by dietrichepp » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 2:47 AM UTC

nitwit005 wrote: post #33

_delirium wrote: post #18

The headline kind of has the valence of government activity backwards, though I agree with its policy proposal. Other states don't restrict job-hopping, they just stand by and don't interfere as the free market ends up having the effect of restricting job-hopping. Employees end up signing restrictive employment contracts, and states don't prohibit them from doing so. California has made a conscious decision that the…

Enforcement of contracts is always government intervention. It's a regulation of business, forcing people to stick to their word on certain issues, despite obvious economic reasons not to. Not enforcing some contracts is less intervention, not more.

Right, and in most contracts you would sue for damages if the contract were broken. But with non-compete agreements, it's common to seek injunctive relief, which is a kind of terrifying and powerful tool that the court has. Liquidated damages seem like a more reasonable, free-market friendly alternative, although I'd rather see courts stay out of this even more.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#36

Post by computator » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 2:50 AM UTC

grahamburger wrote: post #30

stale2002 wrote: post #11

Here is the thing about non-competes. If you are smart about it, they can be basically impossible to enforce. If you've signed a non-compete and jump ship, you can simply NOT tell your old employer that you got a new job. What are they going to do? Sue you for working at a company they don't know about? There is nothing they can do if you are subtle.

At the last few places I've worked I've found that all I had to do was smile as they handed me the non-compete and tell them that I would take it home, read it and return it signed. Then I'd take it home and trash it. The next time someone asks about it (usually every few months) I say "I'm sorry, I think I lost it, could you email it to me again?" and start the process over. I honestly hate to be that passive aggres…

This advice works in a surprisingly wide variety of situations. It's good to stick to principles and say "hell no!", but sometimes it's not worth a fight. It doesn't work with taxes, but certain problems just go away if you ignore it.

In situations like this, I put it on my long-term to-do list to get it off my mind. In a remarkable number of cases, I get to cross it off my list months later without having had any arguments.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#37

Post by dietrichepp » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 2:50 AM UTC

vasilipupkin wrote: post #34

My understanding is, non competes that do not pay you to stay out of the job market are unenforceable in many states, for example, in Illinois.

Since it's a contract, it's often unenforceable unless there is some kind of consideration. I believe in most states, if an employer asks you to sign a non-complete after you start work, it's unenforceable.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#38

Post by kelukelugames » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 2:51 AM UTC

Also bless California for not having the non compete clause.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#39

Post by skewart » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 2:54 AM UTC

ww520 wrote: post #10

CA Labor Code section 2870 (you don't give up IP rights to the work you did in your own time) is also vastly important.

This. It's really hard to imagine SV becoming what it is today without this section in the labor laws.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#40

Post by ryandrake » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 2:56 AM UTC

fooey wrote: post #19

sizzzzlerz wrote: post #12

I've worked in SV my entire career and had never even envisioned other states allowed no-compete contracts in this day and age. Everybody I know and have worked with has had multiple jobs and wouldn't have it any other way. Yet one more way CA is far in front of every other state in basic worker rights.

The company I used to work for bullied most of the employees into signing a 5 year non-competes. And that was after they'd already been in business for 5 years. My department collectively said no, but it was a huge showdown, and they immediately started trying to figure out how to make the company less reliant on us. Every other person in the company except for us signed it. The lawyer we consulted said it was the mo…

Totally ridiculous. If you want me to non-compete for 5 years, you better compensate me full salary for those 5 years that I spend sitting around not working for your competition.