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

121–130 of 218 posts

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#121

Post by Sharlin »

neilwilson wrote: post #108

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 th…

With apologies to Casablanca, I'm shocked—shocked!—to find the US legal culture to favor the freedom of corporations over the freedom of people.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#122

Post by matz1 »

ngngngng wrote: post #95

Do non competes ever come back to bite you? I signed a non compete at a previous company, and several of coworkers left to a direct competitor. No one cares, no one ever heard anything about it. My current company tried to get me to sign a non compete by leaving it on my desk. I dropped it in a drawer and now everyone's forgot about it. No one is ever going to remember to get me to sign it. The main thing that weirde…

Me personally would just sign it and forget about it. It won't stop me to work at competitor. I deemed that the chance it will come back to bite me is very very low, I'll accept risk.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#123

Post by icelancer »

dunpeal wrote: post #100
throwdaddy425 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you a senior developer or architect? I can't imagine an employer would humor this with a new recruit or junior developer. A lot of larger employers also have rigid processes for onboarding new people and modifying contracts isn't always something they're willing to do.

I'm a senior engineer, and as I said, I was never able to bargain away a single non-compete clause. Even with a smaller employer, you will need some bargaining power.

I was a mid-tier engineer and was able to bargain them away because I was often recruited based on my open source contributions and community work. It's a pretty easy sell to say: "You found out about me because of this work, and it's going to continue, or you're going to pay X for me to stop it for Y years."

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#124

Post by Proven »

They aren't trapped, they are handsomely paid to sign those.

They could decline and go to work for a Tier 3 competitor who has little IP to worry about, etc. but they don't do that. Why? Are they too stupid to think for themselves? Or simply familiar with the basic math?

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#125

Post by williamdclt »

snovv_crash wrote: post #83
twblalock wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with you, but then you're not choosing. It might not be a right time for you to take a 2 years pause, you might really want to work for this competitor (which is why you're quitting)

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#126

Post by williamdclt »

draven wrote: post #91
twblalock wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can still work in a company not directly competing with your previous employer and get the compensation. I just had a quick look (I never had one), non-competes without compensation are illegal in France.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you can do that, no

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#127

Post by EliRivers »

paxys wrote: post #35
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.

And I'd argue that this is one of the biggest reasons why the area was able to evolve from a couple of semiconductor companies into the world's most valuable business ecosystem. Most other states are too beholden to a few big companies and don't see how following suit will only help them over the long term.

Pure anecdote in support of your argument, from the top of my head, but you have to wonder how things would have gone if Shockley's traitorous eight could never have come into existence due to non-competes.

No Fairchild? No FairChildren?

Basically, no Silicon Valley.

According to an Endeavor Insight report: in 2014 of the more than 130 Bay Area tech companies trading on the NASDAQ or the New York Stock Exchange, “70 percent of these firms can be traced directly back to the founders and employees of Fairchild. The 92 public companies that can be traced to Fairchild are now worth about $2.1 trillion, which is more than the annual GDP of Canada, India, or Spain.”

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#128

Post by gaius »

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.

It’s funny, my second biggest expense after the mortgage is my season ticket. I haven’t run the numbers but it’s possible that 75% of my salary without that and the other costs of working might actually break even!

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#129

Post by EliRivers »

dunpeal wrote: post #101
kccqzy wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bec…

Didn't some of them (Apple, Intel, Google and more) get busted for agreeing under the counter to not hire each others employees?

https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti-po...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-lawsuit/steve-jobs-...

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#130

Post by mprev »

neilwilson wrote: post #108

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 th…

In practice, I’ve seen a UK based friend end up in limbo while his former employer tried to take out an injunction against his new employer to prevent them hiring him.

It ended with a weird hostage swap. The new company agreed to let one of their team go work for the company that was trying to enforce the non-compete. They also insisted my friend wasn’t allowed to work on customer facing projects for six months.

In effect, it came down to who had the most money for lawyers rather than anything else.

In practice, non-competes can cause enough hassle and financial pain in the UK that, unfortunately, individuals can be prevented from plying their trade. That burden of proof isn’t as clear cut, either.

Post reply on HN