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

101–110 of 242 posts

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#101

Post by luckydata »

cortesoft wrote: post #70
luckydata wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most non-competes are usually imposed on very specialized professions like market analysts and accountants at global firms for example. If you're barred from working for another financial firm for 2 years, what are you going to do?

I'm surprised to see such a narrow view about this issue on this forum.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#102

Post by yellowapple »

I feel like the proliferation of non-compete agreements is counterproductive even from a practical standpoint. Sure, you get to prevent your employees from jumping ship to your competitors, but your competitors are doing the same thing. Better to be against them even for short-term gains, let alone long-term.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#103

Post by wpietri »

paulie_a wrote: post #19
wpietri wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the perspective of any normal employee, "non-enforceable" doesn't matter. That I can eventually win in court doesn't matter if I can't afford the time, money, and stress to get that ruling. Exactly the goal, I'm sure, of the people writing up these agreements.

From the perspective of the normal employee they should understand they pretty much won't be enforced. The threat will be made. And then no follow up.

Maybe. Or maybe they're willing to go to court, make you get a lawyer, drag you through discovery, depose you, set a court date to force you to prep for trial, and then offer to settle at the last minute.

For a large company, that's a small amount of money and a modest amount of time. For the normal employee, it's a lot of unexpected expense, a great deal of stress for months, and the risk of owing a shit-ton of money at the end of it.

If you really think there's no risk to ignoring non-competes, presumably you should be willing to guarantee the legal expenses for someone who wants to try. But my guess is that you won't offer.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#104

Post by wpietri »

mikeash wrote: post #50
walshemj wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If its not justiciable you can just ignore them

And they can just sue you anyway.

Yes, exactly. My first lawyer explained it well: "The question isn't whether you'll win. It's whether you can afford to win."

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#105

Post by goatherders »

I've had non competes at my last 3 jobs (all in web hosting)

The first, a darling "startup" adored by investors and customers alike sued me twice, sent a process server to my door at 6am on a saturday and tried to call me in for a deposition the afternoon of Christmas eve. They regularly win company culture awards and receive undeserved praise for being a place people can grow. I had a chance to grow from IC to VP and they did everything they could legally do to stop me.

The second, a publicly traded hosting company that has battled negative public perception for years had an EVP handle it wherein he basically said "sounds like you are leaving for a great opportunity. We wish you and your family well and you'll always be 'one of us.'"

The third company voluntarily and without my asking remover the non compete from my separation paperwork.

Non competes are a disaster and always will be. But how companies enforce them is the real culprit.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#106

Post by CoolGuySteve »

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 doesn't stop companies from asserting that their non-compete is more broad than it is. Once they do, no other company is going to risk having you work for them while that illegally-broad non-compete is in effect.

You can sue but it's so expensive you probably won't and the company knows it.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#107

Post by stale2002 »

wpietri wrote: post #103
paulie_a wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the perspective of the normal employee they should understand they pretty much won't be enforced. The threat will be made. And then no follow up.

Maybe. Or maybe they're willing to go to court, make you get a lawyer, drag you through discovery, depose you, set a court date to force you to prep for trial, and then offer to settle at the last minute. For a large company, that's a small amount of money and a modest amount of time. For the normal employee, it's a lot of unexpected expense, a great deal of stress for months, and the risk of owing a shit-ton of mone…

Sure. But it a company wants to sue you just for the hell of it, then whether or not you signed a non-compete is irrelevant. Maybe you negotiated this out of your contract, but they decide to sue you anyway.

The better solution to all of this is not to "ignore" the non compete risk, it is instead be to simply lie to your former employer.

What are they going to do? Hire a private investigator to track down all ex employees, to see if they have another job? Probably not.

It is pretty easy to get away with this stuff if an employee really feels like it.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#109

Post by ghaff »

luckydata wrote: post #101
cortesoft wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Most non-competes are usually imposed on very specialized professions like market analysts and accountants at global firms for example. If you're barred from working for another financial firm for 2 years, what are you going to do? I'm surprised to see such a narrow view about this issue on this forum.

One area of non-competes I'm somewhat familiar with is consultants/analysts for a particular market. If they leave, sure, they can go work for a vendor or other participant in a different side of the market. Which is a very different job. But they basically can't do their role with another firm or independently. And my understanding is that these non-competes are regularly enforced.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#110

Post by manfredo »

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…

> You get paid for the goodwill value and you should not be able to capitalize on the payment and simultaneously raid the goodwill of your former practice by competing against it.

No, employees don't get paid for "goodwill value" - whatever that means - they get paid for work they do in the course of their employment. If a company stands to lose if one of their employees changes jobs and works for a competitor, then the employer should be sure to give them generous raises and compensate them for the fair market value of their labor - not by relying on legal threats. I'm baffled by how widespread this belief that employees have some moral responsibility to sacrifice opportunities to the benefit of their current employer. Be a rational actor in the labor market, doing otherwise is an easy way to get taken advantage of.

Post reply on HN