Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes • Hacker News Board

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#101

Post by dunpeal » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 5:51 AM UTC

kccqzy wrote: post #98

dunpeal wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's research that credits the fact that SV is in California and not, for example, near Cambridge MA, to the fact that non-competes aren't enforceable in California.

I've also heard a theory from a friend that one reason SV companies develop new technology so quickly is because the free movement of employees between companies is essentially the de facto transfer of technology between companies. Of course things like trade secrets won't be transferred, but the general skills, ideas and know-how can quickly spread from company to company. In contrast, in regions with non-competes,…

Of course. It also encourages competition, especially from new startups.

Imagine Facebook had to wait for a couple of years to be able to hire any senior engineers with the knowledge and skills to scale their services.

They would lose momentum, and quite possibly fail as their service would be constrained by severe scaling and reliability issues.

The reason Facebook and other unicorns were able to thrive in SV is because they were able to poach dozens of experienced engineers from other companies, that are all arguably its competitors.

If you like startups, non-competes are some of your worst enemies.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#102

Post by microDude » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 6:06 AM UTC

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.

Yes. I told my boss, when he asked. They would find out, since I left to their customer.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#103

Post by tomhoward » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 6:07 AM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #86

cryptonector wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They mean andyidsinga.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#104

Post by microDude » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 6:09 AM UTC

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.

Yes, Oregon's wage limit (4 person family) and 18 time limit help...

This coming from someone who's former employer tried to enforce a NDA on me.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#105

Post by Mikeb85 » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 6:19 AM UTC

And if you're a 'worker' no court is ever going to enforce a non-compete clause.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#106

Post by takitus » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 6:28 AM UTC

[dead]

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#107

Post by tomhoward » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 6:57 AM UTC

mavelikara wrote: post #93

snovv_crash wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Getting 75% of your salary to do nothing for 2 years is the opportunity of a lifetime The examples you listed makes me ask this. Imagine your parents, while raising you, given this option of having their pay reduced by 25%. How likely would the options you listed have been an "opportunity of a lifetime" to them?

It could work out really well; they'd have loads more time to spend with their kids, and could take on other part-time/casual non-competing work to make up the difference.

I can imagine plenty of people would accept the option of taking 75% of their salary to spend all/most of their time with their young kids for a couple of years.

After tax, it might not work out to much of a difference anyway, especially after you consider the other incidental expenses relating to work (transport, attire, etc).

Of course, no agreement is going to be 100% perfect in every scenario, but this is way more even-handed than a one-way non-compete with no compensation at all.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#108

Post by neilwilson » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 7:57 AM UTC

Non-competes are heavily restricted in the UK under the basic principles of free competition, anti-slavery and anti-trust.

No noncompete clause can go further than is reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, otherwise it is unenforceable. The burden of proof is on the employer.

No individual can be prevented from plying their trade by contract with another.

I'm amazed in the land of the free that any of these things could stand up in a court. It's like reintroducing indenture.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#109

Post by JamesBarney » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 8:01 AM UTC

sbjustin wrote: post #5

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.

The problem is the average person doesn't have the money to pay a lawyer to fight off a company - especially the ones with teams of lawyers who need something to do.

No it's much worse than this. They never threaten the employee. They threaten the company hiring the individual. The employee might take it to court(and it most states win), but the hiring firm has no incentive to do so, and just moves on the next candidate.

They don't have to sue, they just have to send a letter to the new firm. Or even worse the new firm just has to ask "did you sign a non-compete?"

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#110

Post by User23 » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 8:02 AM UTC

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.

California has a lot of questionable legislation, but they really did nail this one. It's extremely well thought out and the exceptions where non-competes can be enforced all make perfect sense.

For example, a non-compete is legally binding in California is if you sell your business to someone else. Then they can enforce an agreement against your starting a new business competing against the business you just sold them.