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

Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 218 posts

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#51

Post by Stratoscope »

harry8 wrote: post #41
twblalock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cue the apologists working for the big silicon valley players... Why? Silicon Valley is in California where noncompetes are illegal. Silicon Valley companies don't use them. I've been in Silicon Valley my entire career and I have never seen one or heard of anyone who has.

"Why? Silicon Valley is in California where noncompetes are illegal" Everything that follows this is a subsequent edit.

Is that a problem? I routinely edit my own comments to clarify a thought or fix a typo, and I'm grateful when others take the trouble to do the same.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#52

Post by klenwell »

deogeo wrote: post #44

Shockingly, 'right to work' laws don't forbid non-competes.

Not shocking at all when you understand "right-to-work" is an Orwellian term coined by business-friendly political operatives to erode labor rights and advance corporate/shareholder interests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#54

Post by microDude »

andyidsinga wrote: post #20

fwiw - here's a FAQ on non-competes in oregon: https://www.oregon.gov/boli/TA/Pages/ta_faq_noncompete.aspx

I lived in Oregon when I signed a non-compete as a software engineer intern. I did not know what I was signing and thought it just applied to stealing trade secrets or source code.

So, I ended up working for that company after grad school, for about 6 years. Then,,, a customer of that company (one that I worked with, and grew a favorable reputation with) offered me a nice package (2x salary offering, plus a RSU bonus account worth about $125k). I was not making that much at the original company for the market (about $72k). So, I jumped....

I gave my previous employer about 6 weeks notice, and documented all of my work, and did my best to transfer project ownership to other employees. I really liked all of the engineers I worked with and was attempting to stay in good graces.

Then, on my last day of work my boss calls me on the phone and screams at me for leaving the company. He flashes the NDA on the computer screen and highlights the non-competitor part of the agreement. Then, he has the gall to demand that I sign another agreement, saying that I am knowingly taking trade secrets with me..... Bull-shit, I'm not signing that I say. Then, I had to hire a lawyer and burn through the sign on bonus and relocation at the new company to move on. I ended up signing a version of that agreement, since my lawyer said we would have to take them to court to get out of it, and that I will be out after 18 months anyways. The truth of the matter is, I could have fought it and may have won, since I made less then the threshold, but I just wanted to move on....

Now, I am really happy. I am finally making a living (comfortable) wage for me and my family, and will be taking a family vacation for the first time in years.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#55

Post by ohazi »

sitkack wrote: post #50

There is a section on Arxiv called "Physics and Society" [0] that has papers with titles like, "Inference of Demographic Attributes based on Mobile Phone Usage Patterns and Social Network Topology" [1], that would be a perfect place to explore the mathematical and empirical answer to the question, "what is the ratio and shape of the number of folks in an economy that have non-competes and what is the result". My hunc…

I bet there are a lot of people who ended up working under a non-compete at some point, hopped to job number 5 or 6, and was at one point / is currently violating said non-compete, but nobody at the original company actually knows or cares where ex-employee #536 currently works and won't bother pursuing legal action.

I've worked at several companies where management didn't seem to have any idea what was actually in the documents they asked their employees to sign, it was all just cookie-cutter boilerplate that they either found online, or that some company lawyer put in there without actually planning anything further.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#56

Post by _m96l »

djsumdog wrote: post #49

I've always refused to sign any contract with a non-compete. In every case, the employer has removed or voided it. The only exceptions were jobs in Chicago, and I walked away from two different jobs because they couldn't change their contract. I often don't even bring it up during the interview, until I get an offer. At that point if they're not willing to negotiate my basic rights as a worker, it's not a company I w…

I have the opposite experience. I refused to sign non-competes for all past offers that included them, and in all cases the potential employer then walked away. That happened after lengthy interview processes that lasted multiple days and cost the employer many thousands of dollars.

Gives you an idea how important these non-competes are to them.

I should mention these were big, powerful employers. You might be able to negotiate them with small employers who suffer from lack of candidates.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#57

Post by harry8 »

Stratoscope wrote: post #51
harry8 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why? Silicon Valley is in California where noncompetes are illegal" Everything that follows this is a subsequent edit.

Is that a problem? I routinely edit my own comments to clarify a thought or fix a typo, and I'm grateful when others take the trouble to do the same.

Go right ahead and note the edit. You see it frequently around here, people write

edit: I'm adding this bit for further explanation.

I was being criticised rather heavily for responding to what was written as it didn't look "Charitable" in the light of subsequent expansion. It's right there still if you care to look.

edit: this conversation thread has been completely de-railed by it. Was that the point? Who knows...

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#58

Post by harry8 »

throwawaymath wrote: post #18
harry8 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow, which part did you fail to understand?

As an aside, this is one of the least charitable ways you could have responded to that comment. It's probably why you're getting downvoted. This is why what you wrote is dismissive: 1. They quoted the portion of your comment relevant to their response, 2. They explained in a straightforward and neutral way why what you said in the quoted portion doesn't really make sense, 3. You responded without any specifics about…

All in an edit after I made the response. Charitable? The conversation is now well and truly de-railed. Cool huh?

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#59

Post by burtonator »

twblalock wrote: post #3

Banning noncompete agreements is something California has been doing right since 1872 when they were first banned. Another thing California does right is refusing to honor noncompete agreements from other states.

We nailed it...

Also, as a workers rights issue, always ask yourself if the company would do the same for you.

If they ask you to sign a contract saying to give six weeks notice or something silly ask if they would give you six weeks notice of a layoff or termination.

In the case of non-competes you should ask if they don't hire from their competitors too... If they're going to reduce YOUR compensation because of competition from engineers working at other companies it's not a fair claim.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#60

Post by nsxwolf »

trhway wrote: post #15
harry8 wrote: post #6

noncompetes work even when illegal and unenforceable. Why, because you or many of your potential employers don't want the massive cost and emotional toll of being sued - even if you win you lose. That's all google, facebook, microsoft, etc. you know the companies that we KNOW are guilty of operating a cartel to drive down wages. That's all they need. This baseless illegal, legally unenforcable contract provision mean…

>That's all google, facebook, microsoft, etc. you know the companies that we KNOW are guilty of operating a cartel to drive down wages The cartel was broken around 2010 and that (together with options expensing) have led to the compensations growth from $150K back then to $400K+ today. If anything the FB, Google, etc are driving everybody's wages up today.

What does that mean? Are you saying that if I made $150k in 2010, I should expect to be making $400k or more today?
Post reply on HN