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

71–80 of 218 posts

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#71

Post by ixacto »

_m96l wrote: post #42
tranchms wrote: post #2

I’ve found these non-competes often have no teeth. Unless you possess exceptional knowledge or secrets, companies will not waste the resources going after you. And often when they do, they lose. But it’s a judgement call. I’d say the fear of non-competes has more power than the non-competes themselves.

> I’ve found these non-competes often have no teeth. Unless you possess exceptional knowledge or secrets, companies will not waste the resources going after you. You naively conflate "not biting" with "having no teeth". Amazon forces all workers to sign non-competes. They only sue those who piss them off. Granted, a small minority. But that minority suffers a harrowing ordeal, typically losing their new job and their…

Didn't know that, also FUCK AMAZON from now on. But what are they going to do? Some sort of civil suit is not that big of a deal if you have your assets appropriately sheltered.

Although this makes me hate Jeff Bezos just a little bit more. Hope he loses it all in the divorce battle.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#73

Post by algesten »

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…

In Sweden the notice period is typically the same on both behalfs. If they demand you give 4 month notice, they will also have to do that.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#74

Post by jib »

Legogris wrote: post #69
burtonator wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My French contract had 2 months notice and a non compete option for the employer, where they had the option to pay me 75% of the salary for 2 years to enforce the non compete. That kind of non competes I don’t mind.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#75

Post by cc439 »

_m96l wrote: post #56
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 t…

The larger the employer, the more bureacracy is involved in the hiring process. Any non-conformance to the standardized process comes with a risk of complete process failure once a corporation reaches a certain size and begins to silo off certain functional groups. I've found myself in many situations where a customer or employee requested something perfectly reasonable to settle a dispute, only for me to find there is literally no way to resolve the issue as there is no mechanism with which to do so or the individual who can move the levers is seperated by so many layers of management/org chart spaghetti that no one has a clue who to reach out to. There's always the hope that someone close to the process is willing to put their neck on the line and break procedure in a way that risks reprimand or their career but that's a fleeting chance more often than not.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#76

Post by twblalock »

jib wrote: post #74
Legogris wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My French contract had 2 months notice and a non compete option for the employer, where they had the option to pay me 75% of the salary for 2 years to enforce the non compete. That kind of non competes I don’t mind.

I would mind it a lot, because when I leave a company I'll be making more than I do now, not 75% of what I do now.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#77

Post by cc439 »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #31
tranchms wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re the “average person”, you have nothing to worry about. Trust me. Non-competes really only matter for people with exceptional knowledge of something. From a business standpoint, the legal resources to build a case against a single “average person” who signs a generic non-compete are not a good investment. But like I said, it’s a judgement call. Anyone in the possession of that exceptional knowledge should be…

If the average person has nothing to worry about then why do all average people have to sign non-competes if they want the job? The fact is that companies see a benefit in threatening all new hires with non-competes, and like I said elsewhere, the only people with enough pull to negotiate out of a non-compete are those highly specialized non-average people who are the least likely to sign the boilerplate contract, wh…

>So who are the non-competes really for then?

They're for assuaging the corporate leadership that they are actually effective at managing that pesky turnover problem they've been having in a manner that doesn't require them to increase pay or improve working conditions. That and people who carry a "book of business" (the sales team) and those with critical expertise in certain, niche knowledge domains.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#78

Post by apta »

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…

Did you tell them where you were heading? Maybe for the future it would be better not to declare this.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#80

Post by sgustard »

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'm glad I've wasted their time

That's an odd attitude. You've also wasted your own time, yes?

I can see how it's problematic to bring it up ahead of time. "By the way, I won't sign a non-compete." Immediately the company is on alert: you plan to quit after learning their secrets and go to a competitor? It's like drug testing: obviously a violation of your rights, but why would I hire this one guy who refuses to take it?

The only real solution is legislative. For you to die on that hill repeatedly means the companies are still just as profitable, and you're unemployed.

Post reply on HN