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

111–120 of 242 posts

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#111

Post by samstave »

nraynaud wrote: post #39
samstave wrote: post #33

I would love to see a spoof where a middle age serf is going to move to a new farm, but his current lord forces him to sign a contract which precludes the serf from using his wheat farming skills for the new lord who is the current lords political competition.

nice try but serves were attached to the land by nature.

Well, tying your labor force to the land should be no basis for a free economy!

Imagine, just shackling your primary economic labor force to an arbitrary plot of land and demanding taxes and work of them?! How ghastly.

Next thing you know, you'll be claiming right to their innovations in the advancement of farming technology. Ill have you know that I shall not be sharing MY designs for soil improvement through the addition of various rock powders and animal droppings for a greater yield in the annual barley production with this stingy, short-sighted lord. That's for sure.

And don't get me started on Johnson's idea about switching out the types of crops grown between plots. There is no way I am going to share THAT idea with a lord who limits MY ability to migrate between estates!

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#112

Post by Wowfunhappy »

BonesJustice wrote: post #73
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.

You are most valuable in a position that leverages your existing skills and expertise. Those positions are the most likely to be covered by NCAs. Not only is 100% not too much, but it’s the minimum that should be required. The cost of requiring a NCA should be high; that ensures they are only used when they are really worth it to the employer.

> You are most valuable in a position that leverages your existing skills and expertise.

Exactly. So per the non-compete, you'd have to take a position where you are only 40% as valuable as you could be—and the 60% noncompete makes up the difference.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#113

Post by georgeecollins »

goatherders wrote: post #105

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 an…

So ban them, at least in most cases. That's what we do in California.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#114

Post by fenomas »

manfredo wrote: post #110
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…

> No, employees don't get paid for "goodwill value"

The passage you quoted and replied to wasn't about employees, it was one of two examples GP raised to argue that that non-competes can make sense outside of an employment context.

> Thus, even states like California, which basically ban the use of non-competes in an employment context, will fully enforce them in the situations noted above.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#115

Post by georgeecollins »

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…

There are many incentives available to prevent the seller of a company (and the employees) to not run out and start a competitor. You can give them shares that vest over time. You can offer them employment in the new company. You can make various offers contingent on the performance of the sold company.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#116

Post by tanbog »

"In Great Britain, courts generally endorsed NCAs so long as they remained “reasonable” -- a quality that was very much in the eye of the beholder."

Legally speaking, reasonable refers to "The man on the Clapham omnibus" and is a standard test in many jurisdictions. It is NOT the same thing as the general use of the term in the English language. AT least in Great Britain and most Commonwealth countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#117

Post by manfredo »

fenomas wrote: post #114
manfredo wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> No, employees don't get paid for "goodwill value" The passage you quoted and replied to wasn't about employees, it was one of two examples GP raised to argue that that non-competes can make sense outside of an employment context . > Thus, even states like California, which basically ban the use of non-competes in an employment context, will fully enforce them in the situations noted above.

From the original comment

> So too if you exit a professional practice and get bought out. Same principle. 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. Fair and reasonable even though it restricts you in your livelihood.

Unless "professional practice" specifically refers to something like being the partner of a law firm it does sound like it's saying that the spirit of non-competes should apply between employee-employer relationships.

Even then it seems like a bad thing you advocate. If I am at a law firm and I think I would be better served to go form my own practice, I shouldn't refrain from doing so out of some sense of goodwill on part of my previous practice. Sure, it may be a bad idea to burn bridges - but that's done out of a desire to maintain good relations and reputation, not because it's immoral to compete withy past employer.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#118

Post by whatshisface »

mehrdadn wrote: post #96
logfromblammo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All other things being equal, businesses will hire the candidate that they can potentially abuse before the one that may righteously push back. So if you are one who would negotiate the terms of a non-compete, you will not even get the opportunity until all those who will just blindly sign it have been given the chance to do so. The smart-ass part is signaling that you're less-abusable before the decision is made on…

How do you do this when the signature happens online rather than on paper?

Try sending them physical documents? Maybe they have a fax machine.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#119

Post by code_beers »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #112
BonesJustice wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are most valuable in a position that leverages your existing skills and expertise. Those positions are the most likely to be covered by NCAs. Not only is 100% not too much, but it’s the minimum that should be required. The cost of requiring a NCA should be high; that ensures they are only used when they are really worth it to the employer.

> You are most valuable in a position that leverages your existing skills and expertise. Exactly. So per the non-compete, you'd have to take a position where you are only 40% as valuable as you could be—and the 60% noncompete makes up the difference.

So what, I’m only expected to bring 40% of my abilities to my next job? That makes mathematical sense, but it’s impossible in practice. It would be like trying to use 40% of your arms.

If an honest engineer sees a problem which is exactly the same as one she solved at a previous company, and it is still the best solution, she will solve it in the same way. This has nothing to do with company secrets, it’s basic tradecraft. But it’s covered in many of these agreements. They’ve got to go, plain and simple.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#120

Post by cialowicz »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #112
BonesJustice wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are most valuable in a position that leverages your existing skills and expertise. Those positions are the most likely to be covered by NCAs. Not only is 100% not too much, but it’s the minimum that should be required. The cost of requiring a NCA should be high; that ensures they are only used when they are really worth it to the employer.

> You are most valuable in a position that leverages your existing skills and expertise. Exactly. So per the non-compete, you'd have to take a position where you are only 40% as valuable as you could be—and the 60% noncompete makes up the difference.

What about the opportunity loss that results from taking a less relevant job with worse career prospects?
Post reply on HN