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

Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 242 posts

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#61

Post by walshemj »

chii wrote: post #48
BonesJustice wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

60%? Forget that. Why should anyone give up their right to work for a little over half of their market value? There is no excuse for allowing less than 100% compensation, and that should include not just salary, but projected bonuses.

It's not like the specific job is the only thing you can do - there are other jobs that don't break the NC. 100% is too high, and 50% is too low. But the amount should be negotiable for each person.

But many countries ban people being allowed to ply their trade which is why non competes to be enforceable have to be narrowly drawn.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#62

Post by geebee »

dunpeal wrote: post #34
rrggrr wrote: post #17

Q: I'm willing to pay you $100,000 to sign a non-compete to work on the project with my company. If I don't pay, the non-compete isn't valid. Okay? A: No. Q: $500,000? A: No. Q: $1m? A: No. Q: $10m? A: Yes. The point being... the problem is NOT non-competes. The problem is the exchange of value. They serve a useful purpose in support of business risk-taking and investment. Make them fair, not unenforceable.

> Make them fair, not unenforceable. Nice idea. How do you do that in practice? How does the judicial system decide what NCA is "fair"? The cost of the NCA to the employee can be heavy. How do you "fairly" value it? In reality you'll get what you have right now, where entire industries (and certainly entire companies) simply mandate NCAs in all their contracts and there's no way to remove it or get compensated for it…

IANAL, is there a legal distinction between unenforceable and not enforced as a matter of policy? The second could encompass a contract clause that is enforceable as a practical matter, but not considered desirable. The first could include things that are desirable, but impossible for a court to enforce as a practical matter.

I'm inclined to think that non-competes are both undesirable and unenforceable as a practical matter, though I understand many states to enforce them. The reason I focus on the unenforceable as a practical matter is 1) that jobs so often aren't what they are advertised to be, and 2) courts, as a practical concern, don't see a realistic role for themselves as long term regulators over who is allowed to work where on a practical level.

I can see this working perhaps in extremely limited conditions, but that goes into undesirable - to enforce these, you're asking the courts to rule that the employer upheld its side of the contract where it came to a job, determine specifically that the new job falls within the contract, becomes an enforcer over some worker's life determining where and how he/she is allowed to work... and all for what?

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#63

Post by luckydata »

chii wrote: post #48
BonesJustice wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

60%? Forget that. Why should anyone give up their right to work for a little over half of their market value? There is no excuse for allowing less than 100% compensation, and that should include not just salary, but projected bonuses.

It's not like the specific job is the only thing you can do - there are other jobs that don't break the NC. 100% is too high, and 50% is too low. But the amount should be negotiable for each person.

that's disingenuous, it's very hard to find a job that doesn't look exactly like the 5 last jobs you had. If you want to fix that you gotta fix the labor market and hiring practices first, which is wishful thinking. 60% is low.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#65

Post by hellbanner »

Hah. I interviewed for a [growing in popularity and market share] top 20 cryptocoin. They had some curious choice of words in their "freelance" contract, notably that it would use German copyright law to transfer rights of all inventions I ever made.

I pointed out that a couple of the phrases in the contract, when combined, indicated they would have IP rights to EVERYTHING I did not just work they paid me for.

They moved on to another candidate.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#66

Post by adrianratnapala »

luckydata wrote: post #63
chii wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like the specific job is the only thing you can do - there are other jobs that don't break the NC. 100% is too high, and 50% is too low. But the amount should be negotiable for each person.

that's disingenuous, it's very hard to find a job that doesn't look exactly like the 5 last jobs you had. If you want to fix that you gotta fix the labor market and hiring practices first, which is wishful thinking. 60% is low.

> it's very hard to find a job that doesn't look exactly like the 5 last jobs you had

That's funny, I've never had a job that was exactly like any of the other jobs I've had. Depending on how picky you are, I've never had a job that was even particularly similar to any of my previous ones.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#67

Post by munk-a »

grellas wrote: post #49

Non-competes under U.S. law are neither all good nor all bad. They have their legitimate uses but these are the narrow cases and not the norm. For example, you sell a business to someone who pays you a big premium for your goodwill value usually tied to the value of the customer base. It is entirely fair that, having taken the money in exchange for the sale of your goodwill interest, you not be able to turn around th…

> For example, you sell a business to someone who pays you a big premium for your goodwill value usually tied to the value of the customer base. It is entirely fair that, having taken the money in exchange for the sale of your goodwill interest, you not be able to turn around the day after the close and effectively steal it back from your buyer by setting up a competing business and conducting raids to get back your old customers. A reasonable restriction on your ability to compete in that case makes eminent sense and is not in any way unfair.

During the sale the customer information and contacts can be (and by default usually are IIRC) considered an asset of the company, as such the seller reusing contacts can be considered a form of corporate espionage and can be prosecuted in that manner.

This holds just as clearly for departing employees, making unauthorized use of a company's assets after leaving a company is illegal whether it's sneaking in and using your old office or continuing to use contacts, just because in one of those cases the data might be in your phone doesn't change the legality.

But! This sort of corporate espionage is rather common and hard to prove. This brings us back to the commonly known point that sales people have a habit of ruining it for everyone else /s

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#68

Post by cperciva »

deogeo wrote: post #14

Odd that Right to Work laws don't ban non-competes. Edit: Added tags, just in case.

I don't see the connection. Right to Work laws say that workers can't be forced to join a union. They don't say that workers can't voluntarily join a union; so why should they say that workers can't voluntarily sign a non-compete?

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#69

Post by logfromblammo »

chii wrote: post #48
BonesJustice wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

60%? Forget that. Why should anyone give up their right to work for a little over half of their market value? There is no excuse for allowing less than 100% compensation, and that should include not just salary, but projected bonuses.

It's not like the specific job is the only thing you can do - there are other jobs that don't break the NC. 100% is too high, and 50% is too low. But the amount should be negotiable for each person.

Not being able to work a job on your career path freezes it in place, while your physical body continues to age at the same rate. Thus, there is even a case to be made for > 100% compensation.

If you don't choose to retire a year later, the year you sit out is costing you what you would have been making in the last year of your career.

To explain in more detail, starting with the year you return to a career job, your pay may be reduced by a differential representing one year less experience, for every year until the end of your career. You miss out on the pay for the year you didn't work, plus all the raises between years, and the one raise you never got, because your career was one year shorter. All that adds up to the pay you would have otherwise received in the last year of your career.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#70

Post by cortesoft »

luckydata wrote: post #63
chii wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like the specific job is the only thing you can do - there are other jobs that don't break the NC. 100% is too high, and 50% is too low. But the amount should be negotiable for each person.

that's disingenuous, it's very hard to find a job that doesn't look exactly like the 5 last jobs you had. If you want to fix that you gotta fix the labor market and hiring practices first, which is wishful thinking. 60% is low.

Really? All of your jobs have been for competitors of each other? I don't think that is the case for most people.
Post reply on HN