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

Why I Don't Sign Non-Competes

penguindreams.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 295 posts

Re: Why I Don't Sign Non-Competes

#251

Post by axedwool »

Doches wrote: post #228

From the tail end of the OP: > I’m a Computer Scientist. We don’t have unions and we don’t collectively bargain. Basic workers rights are our responsibility I've always been bothered by this question. Why _don't_ we have unions? What is it about the tech industry that makes it so resistant (especially in the US) to labor organization? I work in the EU for a US company, and my American colleagues universally seem to f…

I think it's a bit of both.

American society indoctrinates people with the negative aspects of labor unions. They're run by radicals or the Mafia, they have rules which limit innovation, hold back talented individuals, sanction goldbricking, and on and on. The pro-union side of things is not often promoted in the mainstream.

When the pro-union side of the story is promoted, it's usually in a context where a company was doing something extremely bad to extremely vulnerable people. It's a tough sell to convince an engineer that they're in the same position as an early 20th century lumberjack or coal miner.

I've known people in tech who think of themselves as self-made people and so they further don't like the idea of collective bargaining on a philosophical level.

Re: Why I Don't Sign Non-Competes

#252

Post by DBCerigo »

Wondering if we (as a group of people who will face many non-competes) could generate a standard response to these kinds of clauses in employment contracts, which could be more effective then everyone rolling their own.

I made a (pretty bare for now) repo for it if anyone is interested - https://github.com/DBCerigo/non-compete-standard-response/bl...

Re: Why I Don't Sign Non-Competes

#253

Post by President321 »

joezydeco wrote: post #5

So recently I came across an Invention Disclosure agreement that a company wanted me to sign. The phrasing of this kind of threw me off: "I will promptly communicate to the Company each and every invention, discovery or item of intellectual property made or conceived by me, either as an individual or jointly with others, during my period of employment, and I agree that any such invention, discovery or item of intelle…

I had a contract like that at a call centre! Yeah, I needed work. Made me wonder about the paintings I made during that time that I managed to sell. One went for the price of a weeks wages. And, with several Labour governments in the modern era i wonder how they are allowed along withe those zero hour contracts?

Re: Why I Don't Sign Non-Competes

#254

Post by cwkoss »

joezydeco wrote: post #5

So recently I came across an Invention Disclosure agreement that a company wanted me to sign. The phrasing of this kind of threw me off: "I will promptly communicate to the Company each and every invention, discovery or item of intellectual property made or conceived by me, either as an individual or jointly with others, during my period of employment, and I agree that any such invention, discovery or item of intelle…

I would totally DDOS legal with a deluge of stupid inventions.

Toilet which makes farting sounds when you flush it.

Spoon with a hole in it so you spill on yourself.

Mug without an opening (solid cylinder with handle)

Computer monitor that only displays the color pink.

Headphones with integrated q-tips

iPhone but its a triangle

Strap for swinging a chainsaw over your head like a helicopter

Re: Why I Don't Sign Non-Competes

#255

Post by yebyen »

ryandrake wrote: post #193
njarboe wrote: post #163

What this author misses is that California also has a law[1] that makes unenforceable contracts that claim ownership of anything employees do on their own time with their own equipment. Passed in 1979 (amended 1991). I think other places hoping to create "Silicon $X" need to put anti-non-compete and this law in place to even have a possibility to create a similar culture to the Valley. (a) Any provision in an employm…

> Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated rese You can fit the entire planet through that loophole. Most employers can easily show that your side project “relates” to something they do or might one day do.

I would be careful trying too hard to fit anything at all through that loophole though, as I'm pretty sure in California, companies that push employees to sign non-compete agreements that are deemed unenforceable (which is objectively most non-competes in California), may be subject to statutory damages and may wind up getting summarily owned in the countersuit.

I have no source for this and I am not a lawyer (but nobody knows you're a dog on the internet...) – if anyone knows more about this than I do, I'll happily read and be glad to learn something, but this is a subject I've read a bit about.

OK, actually, it wasn't that hard to find a citation:

http://levinebakerlaw.com/publications/post-employment-non-c... see the phrase "independent wrong"

You still have strong protections as an employer against "unfair competition" but you are better off not trying to pass any non-compete agreement to your employees, as you may be on the hook for damages if it's determined that your NCA is unenforceable, so you misled the employee(s) who have signed it.

California law is (and has always been) very favorable to employees, compared to other states.

Re: Why I Don't Sign Non-Competes

#256

Post by beagle3 »

Doches wrote: post #228

From the tail end of the OP: > I’m a Computer Scientist. We don’t have unions and we don’t collectively bargain. Basic workers rights are our responsibility I've always been bothered by this question. Why _don't_ we have unions? What is it about the tech industry that makes it so resistant (especially in the US) to labor organization? I work in the EU for a US company, and my American colleagues universally seem to f…

Unions often lead to better terms but lower pay. Europeans are, in general, OK with that.

Americans, in general, value their salary more than anything else, which is optimized by individual bargaining, rather than collective bargaining.

Indeed, if you compare US programmer salaries to (e.g.) UK programmer salaries, the difference is apparent: Outside of specialized industries like finance, the pay in the US is much higher, and the gap grows much more with seniority[0]

I am not aware of any CS union in the UK, but in many senses every European country runs a lot of collective enterprises (healthcare, education), and has strong unions for many other industries, unlike the US; I believe the difference in [0] is, at least in part, due to the "collective" vs. "individual" mindset.

[0] https://www.daxx.com/article/it-salaries-software-developer-...

Re: Why I Don't Sign Non-Competes

#257

Post by beagle3 »

heywire wrote: post #221

What are your thoughts about a non-compete which is tied to a bonus, restricted stock, or some other reward? I worked for my employer for several years without a non-compete before I received my first chunk of restricted stock. In accepting the stock grant, I had to accept a non-compete for a period of 1 year, which included both competitors and customers of my employer. It was a significant sum, but not a year's sal…

It depends on your jurisdiction, mostly.

In some jurisdictions, enforceable non compete requires extra-ordinary compensation, which has to be comparable to a base salary.

If the industry (and especially the company) gives almost everyone a bonus, then it is ordinary and thus not enough to make the non-compete agreement valid.

It was customary for employers to negotiate a reasonable salary, say $96K, and write it down in the employment contract that "you get a base salary of $48K/year, and an additional $48K/year is compensation for your 2-year non compete". Courts struck this down many times, since this wouldn't be extraordinary in the first place; and also, because if employee quit after 1 month, they would get $4K in compensation for a 2-year non compete, which is not remotely of the same order of magnitude as the income lost due to that non-compete.

Re: Why I Don't Sign Non-Competes

#258

Post by ryandrake »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #249
ryandrake wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...illegal, but with a loophole you can drive a truck through: if the employer thinks your project is close enough to what they do (or might one day do) it’s theirs. Beware!

But they have to prove this to a judge. The onus is now on them to prove that the thing is related enough to keep you from feeding your family.

I agree, but it’s you vs 500 lawyers. The company can afford litigation, can you?

Re: Why I Don't Sign Non-Competes

#259

Post by beagle3 »

lr4444lr wrote: post #15

Good article, except for the strange conflation of non-compete with debt. Debt implies an asset of value was received by the debtor at some point. No such thing takes place with a non-compete. Employment itself is a contract, not an asset. That's the reasoning behind CA's ban of these clauses.

Depends on jurisdiction.

Turns out that in Israel, for example, where non-compete agreements require material specific pay, a non-compete lasting 3 years or more, is generally considered an asset sale and is taxed as a capital gain transaction (25% instead of the ordinary income which has brackets that go as high as 55%).

Re: Why I Don't Sign Non-Competes

#260

Post by s73v3r_ »

ryandrake wrote: post #258
s73v3r_ wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they have to prove this to a judge. The onus is now on them to prove that the thing is related enough to keep you from feeding your family.

I agree, but it’s you vs 500 lawyers. The company can afford litigation, can you?

Again, that loophole you cited is nowhere near as large as you think it is. Otherwise it would constantly be used.
Post reply on HN