Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 138 posts

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

#81

Post by DannyBee »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #76
DannyBee wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can give you the cynical truth on it: Large employers will generally own whatever you do in your spare time. They will not mention this, and generally not care, but if you make a ton of money or do something really popular, they will start a fight. Note: "The employee bears the burden of establishing his invention comes within Labor Code section 2870. (Lab. Code, § 2872.) " See also cubic corp v. marty, which disas…

What connection does Cubic v Marty have to this? From Justicia: > In mid-May 1977, Marty came up with an idea for an electronic warfare simulator (EWS), a device for training pilots in electronic warfare. He developed a block diagram in May 1977 and in June 1977 a manuscript describing his invention. He showed both the diagram and manuscript to Minton Kronkhite of Cubic, representing it might be a new product which C…

"What connection does Cubic v Marty have to this?"

It's the leading case and, as i said, quoted to this day in pretty much every other case.

Please ignore the facts of this case, what matters here is the courts view on what it means to be related to the business, who bears the burden of proof, etc.

"This is nothing like the scenarios we are talking about where an employee invents something on their own time with no connection to their company or their work. "

Define "no connection". In the hundreds of times i've had employees claim this, i can count on one hand the nubmer of times they were right factually (IE they often don't know enough about a large company to know everything that is going on, etc), and can think of only one case i think a court might agree with them.

Again, feel free to find a case that supports the general view that stuff you do on your own time is yours, and employers are going to have to fight to get it.

Because Cubic says the opposite - the burden is on you to prove it is something that isn't owned by your employer.

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

#82

Post by imtringued »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #23
cmdrfred wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the electorate cares about an issue, you'll see political action. Read the article I linked above and the study it references. That is empirically false.

It's also empirically true. It's very easy to observe votes moving politicians. Without some argument that this issue is governed by a particular special circumstance, your comment has no substance.

This is quite an interesting argument because except funding nothing prevents us from eliminating crime and poverty. The government is simply not interested in doing these things. They'd rather cater to the needs of their 'sponsors'.

I think it's kind of funny that politicans are not interested in their own country.

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

#83

Post by marssaxman »

Spooky23 wrote: post #64
Jemaclus wrote: post #45

What would happen if an employer in Massachusetts offered me a job and asked me to sign a non-compete clause, and I said I wouldn't take the job if I had to sign a non-compete? Do you think they would back down? Or do you think they would say "too bad" and withdraw the offer? My gut says that most of the time, they'll back down and take that off the table. But I guess it depends on whether you have a huge legal team…

For a bigger company, most of the time, they tell you to go away.

In that case I most likely want to go away.

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

#84

Post by sparky_ »

jedberg wrote: post #78
sparky_ wrote: post #77

Here's an honest question. Knowing that non-competes are bogus and unenforceable in California - why do most employers (including mine) feel the need to tack them onto offer letters? Is it a matter of intimidation?

Pretty much. They are hoping you don't know the law. They are also hoping that by encumbering you with one that a future poacher would know that they might have to spend money on lawyers to fight for you in case you get sued, even though they know you will win.

Is this to imply that non-poaching agreements (e.g., "Great, you quit, don't talk to my employees") are equally void?

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

#85

Post by DannyBee »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #74
DannyBee wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" especially since many of your prospective employees won't read it" Why is this on the employers, exactly?

Both parties have to understand a contract for it to agreed upon. For example those massive T&C that go with a website sign-up largely mean nothing if the company hasn't ensured you read and understood them.

This is an interesting, but completely incorrect view :)

"However, the awareness of a legal obligation is established, not through each party's subjective understanding of the terms, but on "objective indicators," based on what each party said and did"

Your T&C examples are adhesion contracts, subject to a different set of rules.

Here, you have an opportunity to bargain like any other party.

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

#86

Post by stretchwithme »

oautholaf wrote: post #29
_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…

I think your lense of "free market" needs to be supplemented with a little game theory here. If you're an employer, what's your disincentive for tucking in a little non-compete in your contract? None at all[1], especially since many of your prospective employees won't read it or potentially (if you're a low-wage employee) understand it's implications. Then what's the disincentive for an entire industry to do this? No…

There is a disincentive, at least when employees recognize what they are signing and how it limits their options. Informed workers that think ahead would see it as a more restrictive job.

Of course, its usually slapped in front of them AFTER they've accepted a job. Having accepted a straightforward offer in good faith, the terms are then altered, slightly.

Perhaps it should be more clearly stated in a written offer that must be considered before accepting.

And perhaps that's why its better to not allow these. It makes it easier for employer and employees to deal with each other. And it makes companies compete more on merit, rather than manipulation.

It doesn't hurt the companies ability to compete with each other, as long as they all live under the same rules.

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

#88

Post by WalterBright »

_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…

I'm a free market guy, and I also agree with certain notions of contract law - like you cannot sign away your inalienable rights. You have those rights regardless.

Also, in order for a contract to be enforceable, there must be an exchange of value. I would agree with the validity of a non-compete clause if there was specific compensation tied to that. For example, "we'll give you $50,000 after you leave the company if you don't compete with us for a year." But tacking it onto an employment agreement, no.

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

#90

Post by WalterBright »

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.

Whenever I've gotten a job, I'd list on the employment contract all my outside projects and get buyoff from management that those were my projects, not the company's. Before I'd start a new outside project, I'd write it up and get management buyoff on it that it is not part of my job.

The key is full disclosure, in advance.

And I never had any trouble over it.

Post reply on HN