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

White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 421 posts

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#301

Post by Spooky23 »

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #296
Spooky23 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Business owners have widely varying interpretations of what trade secrets consist of. For example, a local Jimmy John's was successfully sued for it's non compete with sandwich makers. https://consumerist.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-to-stop-using... "Employee covenants and agrees that, during his or her employment with the Employer and for a period of two (2) years after … he or she will not have any direct or indirec…

That is fucking unbelievable - it's basically contractual extortion. Though the 3 mile clause makes it an entirely different beast than a tech noncompete. Which makes me wonder - are noncompetes ever enforced internationally? Or rather, are there countries that explicitly and reciprocally enforce US noncompetes?

Not sure. The geographic ones are crazy though... my sister in law (who is a PA) was initially told that she couldn't practice in a 16 county region.

Fortunately, PAs are in enough demand that she was able to get it modified to a 20 mile radius and scoped to a particular aspect of the practice.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#302

Post by mancerayder »

cmdrfred wrote: post #231
dllthomas wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's no point in putting one in the contract when there's 95% chance you'll get big fat middle finger in whatever labor court has jurisdiction if you try to activate it. There's potentially plenty of point if you don't expect your employees to understand that (or be able to count on it)

That's how it works in the US, most of the time a non-compete is entirely unenforceable.

In New York, the fear that drives some of us [edit:] to [not fight against] non-competes [on an individual level] is the threat of expensive litigation. If I get sued by my employer, it might cost us the same but I can't afford the legal costs as much as they can afford them. In New York State, commonly it's expected that the courts will enforce a year of non-compete, even if the contract is for more.

It's nice to say that contracts are freely entered into. They are not freely fought over when things are disputed, however. We're not on an equal playing field if my employer can afford legal representation and I can't, and that's a very real financial threat that is a form of coercion.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#303

Post by sbjustin »

Declanomous wrote: post #260
falcolas wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As most readers here would agree And yet we are still confronted with NDAs just to listen to "Facebook for Farmers" pitches. Perhaps it's better to say those entrepreneurs are afraid of their implementers leaving with all of the domain specific knowledge; believing that it would allow them re-create the product and outmaneuver the entrepreneur. Of course it's never really that easy, but so few fears are rational.

I work at an organization with about 75 employees, and I'm the only person who can program. Half the time I go out for drinks with coworkers, someone corners me and wants to tell me about this awesome idea they have. Unfortunately, they can't tell me anything because I haven't signed an NDA yet. So they spend a few hours being coy, and I spend a few hours trying to politely decline. It's always an iPhone app too. I'v…

THIS!

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#304

Post by GeneralMayhem »

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #296
Spooky23 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Business owners have widely varying interpretations of what trade secrets consist of. For example, a local Jimmy John's was successfully sued for it's non compete with sandwich makers. https://consumerist.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-to-stop-using... "Employee covenants and agrees that, during his or her employment with the Employer and for a period of two (2) years after … he or she will not have any direct or indirec…

That is fucking unbelievable - it's basically contractual extortion. Though the 3 mile clause makes it an entirely different beast than a tech noncompete. Which makes me wonder - are noncompetes ever enforced internationally? Or rather, are there countries that explicitly and reciprocally enforce US noncompetes?

Not being allowed to work within 3 miles of a Jimmy Johns can rule out working in fast food in an entire city.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#305

Post by selestify »

jandrese wrote: post #282
omouse wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the logical conclusion. Have you ever seen a large corp and how inefficient they are? The only reason they can remain large is because they can afford to buy politicians and legislation to keep their competitors small. Big Corp creates new regulations to protect their business, the most clear examples are in telecommunications and the music/movie/copyrightable industries. If we removed more regulations tod…

It doesn't really matter how inefficient you are if you have the cash to buyout any potential competitors before they have a chance to threaten your bottom line. In a purely capitalist society wealth (power) accumulates at the top. Money creates money so whomever starts out with the most money tends to win. This is why highly capitalist societies turn into Dubai, with an ultra rich ruling class and a serf/slave class…

Seriously, has no one on here heard of the Gilded Age? Of anticompetitive practices by Standard Oil before regulation was brought in?

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#306

Post by GeneralMayhem »

cmdrfred wrote: post #270
otoburb wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps to help establish a lack of negotiating leverage, one should always ask for the non-compete clause to be removed in writing and then save the (highly likely) employer pushback for future use. In general, it's a good rule of thumb to archive written communications (paper or electronic) for any deal, but it's easier said than done when part of the negotiation takes place over the phone.

That might work. If I wanted to put an employee under a non-compete the easiest way seems to offer something in return. Something along the lines of: "...Employee shall not work for any competitor during his employment and 6 months thereafter, as such he will receive a one time payment of 10,000 dollars...". I think the main issue here is employers want this service for free.

I'd consider even $10,000 insulting in the Bay Area - that's 1 month salary in return for having control over them for 6 months.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#308

Post by cableshaft »

DominikR wrote: post #91
flukus wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The coercion is usually that you don't know about the non-compete until you walk in and sign your employment contract on day 1. >Contractually expanding it for a mutually agreed upon period doesn't strike me as that much different As long as I'm compensated for that period (a normal wage) then I think it's fair.

> The coercion is usually that you don't know about the non-compete until you walk in and sign your employment contract on day 1. Okay this is really bad, in the EU country where I live you usually first negotiate and sign the contract, then start working. But the drawback is that it is really just done this way because the government requires that the business notifies it about your employment before you start worki…

Yep, they spring it on you by giving you your 'Employee Handbook' or something on your first day, after you accepted the offer and relocated and whatever else you wanted to do, then sit down to sign paperwork on your first day and.... yep, there it is, that sneaky little non-compete. You ask HR about it and they'll probably just say "It's standard legalese, everyone here signed it, it's no big deal, just sign the damn thing, or you can walk."

You have to bring it up in the interview if you don't want to be bound by one. But even just asking could spook out the interviewees and get them to pass on you "Is this guy a Snowden? Is he going to steal and leak all our preeeeecious 'secrets'?"

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#309

Post by jacalata »

ams6110 wrote: post #187
jacalata wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jimmy John's managed to enforce it on their employees for years http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7042112

Um... that story states that the clause was never actually enforced therefore there was no valid claim of harm.

Good point, that wasn't the best article for my point! There are no specific lawsuits fighting the non-compete, however in the years following that case several states decided that the harm actually is caused simply by making employees sign the non-compete, and the company no longer has one.

Re: White House urges ban on non-compete agreements for many workers

#310

Post by TDL »

selestify wrote: post #305
jandrese wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't really matter how inefficient you are if you have the cash to buyout any potential competitors before they have a chance to threaten your bottom line. In a purely capitalist society wealth (power) accumulates at the top. Money creates money so whomever starts out with the most money tends to win. This is why highly capitalist societies turn into Dubai, with an ultra rich ruling class and a serf/slave class…

Seriously, has no one on here heard of the Gilded Age? Of anticompetitive practices by Standard Oil before regulation was brought in?

Are you talking about the outlawing of railroad rate rebates or the break up of the company?

Just as an FYI (and apologies if you are already aware of this), but Standard Oil had already lost about ~25% of it's market share by the time it was broken up. Rockefeller had no influence in Texas and California where the wildcatters had moved to and found oil.

Post reply on HN