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

111–120 of 218 posts

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#111

Post by [deleted] »

_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…

[deleted]

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#112

Post by kensai »

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…

I disagree. If he has said this in the beginning it would have probably been the end of the process immediately.

Yes, he wasted his own time, but also got XP out of it. And now the company invested already resources on him and may probably think it’s the worth the risk.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#114

Post by newsbinator »

Question for those in the know: is a non-compete valid if you signed the template, but the company never got it back to you signed on their end?

In other words, your signature is on it, but you've never seen their signature on it.

(Company State = Texas... and I don't reside in Texas)

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#115

Post by quickthrower2 »

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?

Would the non compete cover supermarket checkout work? That might make up the difference.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#116

Post by npsomaratna »

newsbinator wrote: post #114

Question for those in the know: is a non-compete valid if you signed the template, but the company never got it back to you signed on their end? In other words, your signature is on it, but you've never seen their signature on it. (Company State = Texas... and I don't reside in Texas)

Law student (non-USA) here.

The general contract law principle is: if both parties have signed a contract, it is legally valid. Whether copies are possessed by only one party or both is inconsequential.

Exceptions are if the contract contains language mandating that both parties should receive a copy, or if there are specific laws regulating the form of such contracts.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#117

Post by [deleted] »

newsbinator wrote: post #114

Question for those in the know: is a non-compete valid if you signed the template, but the company never got it back to you signed on their end? In other words, your signature is on it, but you've never seen their signature on it. (Company State = Texas... and I don't reside in Texas)

[deleted]

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#118

Post by ownagefool »

_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…

I walked away from a non-compete in Edinburgh, Scotland (startup). I'm not familiar with the law, but I suspect both parties rights had statutory protections anyway, and the clause wasn't legal, but the company was insistant that I sign the contract, even to the point of having lawyers call and explain them to me.

As a contractor it's not that uncommon to be presented contracts with clauses that fail disguised employment regulations. Usually with some negotiation I can get these changed, but on one occasion I recieved a lucrative offer from an intermediary that refused to change the offer. I ended up working for the same client (bank) via another intermediary.

Personally, I refuse to sign bullshit clauses, but many of these companies do refuse to budge, and I imagine it's much harder for junior people to leave the money on the table.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#119

Post by pgeorgi »

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.

OTOH from what I've heard trading companies tend to put you on a well-paid gardening leave for the duration of the non-compete.

That's somewhat reasonable, unlike the "we'll fire you, good luck finding any new employment to pay your bills" kind of non-compete.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#120

Post by matz1 »

tranchms wrote: post #22
sbjustin wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Exactly, for me personally, its silly to worry about this thing non-compete thing. Its a matter of risk assessment. I figure that its very unlikely to cause me trouble.
Post reply on HN