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

81–90 of 218 posts

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#81

Post by kokokokoko »

greglindahl wrote: post #64
kokokokoko wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I was thinking pragmatically. Obviously, there is resistance to California's ban or we would already have plenty of other states with similar laws. We live in a country of hundreds of millions of people and I try to look for ways to improve a situation with a solution that a majority would support today.

I prefer progress to perfect and I hope you feel the same.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#82

Post by james_s_tayler »

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...

given that you only ever see meaningless "edit: spelling" comments they don't add any useful information and are just noise IMO.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#83

Post by snovv_crash »

twblalock wrote: post #76
jib wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Getting 75% of your salary to do nothing for 2 years is the opportunity of a lifetime - travel the world, get a Masters degree, find a low CoL area and bank 90% of it while contributing to open source projects, the options are endless.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#84

Post by twblalock »

apta wrote: post #78
microDude wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They would find out.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#85

Post by Lramseyer »

Serious question - How do the previous employers find out when an employee breaches a non-compete agreement? Is it usually word of mouth that makes it's way to HR/legal? or is it registered through someone's SSN? Because I know LinkedIn does a pretty good job at hiding from your current employer that you're looking for a job. What's to stop them from hiding your current employer to your previous employer?

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#86

Post by twblalock »

cryptonector wrote: post #36
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.

Did you read the rest of the post you're responding to? Did I miss something? I thought u/adyidsinga explained it quite well.

> Did you read the rest of the post you're responding to? Did I miss something? I thought u/adyidsinga explained it quite well.

Who? Nobody with that username has posted anywhere in this entire thread as far as I can tell.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#87

Post by djsumdog »

nacho_weekend wrote: post #67
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.

No actually. One was document management and the other health/wellness. Here's some of my own observations of tech culture in different regions:

https://penguindreams.org/blog/tech-culture-shock-from-ameri...

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#88

Post by cortesoft »

sgustard wrote: post #80
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 ta…

Very odd.. an individual’s time is way more valuable than a company’s time... companies waste time like it grows on trees.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#89

Post by cortesoft »

everdev wrote: post #19
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.

You can still enter into a legally binding non-compete in California resulting from the acquisition of a company or IP.

Yeah, the big difference is that they pay for that time, and the time is a known quantity when you make the agreement. The banned non-competes are the ones where they say, “if you decide to leave at any point in the future, you can’t compete with us for x number of years”... but they won’t give you extra money during that time.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#90

Post by everdev »

cortesoft wrote: post #89
everdev wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still enter into a legally binding non-compete in California resulting from the acquisition of a company or IP.

Yeah, the big difference is that they pay for that time, and the time is a known quantity when you make the agreement. The banned non-competes are the ones where they say, “if you decide to leave at any point in the future, you can’t compete with us for x number of years”... but they won’t give you extra money during that time.

Yes, it's "valuable consideration" usually included in the sale price. It doesn't have to come in the form of a monthly payment or a salary.
Post reply on HN