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

61–70 of 218 posts

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#61

Post by ghaff »

djsumdog wrote: post #47
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…

This is very true. I knew someone who couldn't get a job with another advertising firm because he had signed a non-compete. Even though they're not enforceable, no company wants to hired from another company where they know those companies sign non-competes (and hence they could be in for a court case). This situation is real and I've seen it happen more than once.

I worked for a small firm for a number of years. We wouldn't touch anyone who had a non-compete however unlikely it was to come into play. Just wasn't worth the business risk.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#62

Post by ghaff »

twblalock wrote: post #7
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…

> 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.

They're not illegal. They're just unlikely to be enforceable. Big difference.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#63

Post by twblalock »

microDude wrote: post #54
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…

Sounds like a good explanation for why the tech industry in Silicon Valley is so much bigger than everywhere else, e.g. places like Portland and New York and Boston who theoretically could have just as many qualified workers because of their universities, and also offer a high quality of life.

People move around, including to direct competitors. Tech companies in Silicon Valley need to deal with it because they can't prevent it. As a result, new companies are able to attract talent, people can leave their jobs to start new companies, etc. Companies raise workers' salaries to encourage them to stay.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#64

Post by greglindahl »

kokokokoko wrote: post #48
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've found Oregon's law to be something that could be a reasonable and realistic compromise on a national level. I personally would like to remove them completely as I feel like they are very Anti-American in spirit, but Oregon has something that addresses some of the worse abuses of non-competes and seems like it could make ground politically.

Why wouldn't California's ban on non-competes be a reasonable and realistic compromise?

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#65

Post by Stratoscope »

harry8 wrote: post #57
Stratoscope wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I hope you won't mind too much if I disagree with you about this. I don't personally find any value in remarks like "edit: fixed a typo and added a couple more sentences to help explain what I meant."

I don't plan to start adding those kinds of remarks when I edit a comment. I don't care if other people do this, I just don't see any value in it myself, and I'm just as happy if people simply edit their comments without calling special attention to the edit. I'm not following the history of their comment, I'm just reading it at the moment I read it.

Of course if people have replied to a comment, and a subsequent edit changes the meaning of the comment so the replies don't make sense any more, that is a different story and deserves an "edit" remark.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#66

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#67

Post by nacho_weekend »

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…

Were they trading companies in chi? Worked with them in the past and that industry is ruthless in abiding their noncompetes because there’s enough people who want in the industry.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#68

Post by greglindahl »

PhoenixReborn wrote: post #11
harry8 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've never been asked to sign a noncompete when working in California for any company, including Google. I have not worked at the others so I can't say what their practices are, but most CA-based companies will never even try to get you to sign a non-compete agreement because they know it cannot be enforced.

IBM's contract with California employees doesn't have anything inappropriate for a California employee. That sort of thing is a basic indication of business ethics. Say what you will about IBM in other areas, but they're very ethical about employment contracts.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#69

Post by Legogris »

burtonator wrote: post #59
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 com…

> something silly

1-3 months mutual notice period is common practice in many countries. In France 3 months is standard.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#70

Post by throwawaymath »

harry8 wrote: post #58
throwawaymath wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The conversation hasn't been derailed at all. This subthread is at the bottom of the page; at the top of the thread there are plenty of people making new comments unencumbered by this discussion.
Post reply on HN