Live data from Hacker News

Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

bloomberg.com

141–150 of 218 posts

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#141

Let's introduce reverse non-competes. Reverse non-compete forbids the employer to hire anyone who's directly competing with me on the labor market for one year after my resignation.

That's basically how it works in Sweden. If you are terminated (without cause), the company isn't allowed to employ other people with similar skill sets within a year unless they also give you an offer to come back.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#142

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)

Idk if it's valid or not - I would assume yes - but as a piece of advice: do not sign any copy that hasn't been signed by the other party first.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#143

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…

It’s a state by state thing, They are effectively unenforceable in Colorado for most workers but they are still a fairly standard piece of boilerplate. They really don’t need to be to make most workers’ lives difficult, just the threat of a law suit might be enough to encourage someone to change jobs

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#144
I run a digital agency and employ about 65 people who make more than $150k (product managers and developers, mostly). We stopped putting non competes into our employment contracts awhile ago, mainly because they’re too expensive to enforce. What we do instead is require all of our clients to sign headhunter fee agreements that entitle us to a fee (as much as 100% of salary) if they hire our staff. Much easier to enforce under liquidated damages precedents.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#145
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your point is a good one which I fully support, but the comparison of company value to GDP which you quote bugs me. Company value is a stock, while GDP is a flow. Comparing them is like comparing velocity and acceleration.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Yes, but they did so at a time when none of them could reasonably have been described as startups. GP's point was about startups.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

What does "open source contributions" and "community work" have to do with non-compete clauses?

Non-competes prevent you from working for your employer's commercial competitors. I.E. if you leave Uber, you can't go work for Lyft.

Also, it's naive to assume you can just "sell" an employer on a contractual change that goes against their goals.

Saying "I'm a software engineer, and I plan to continue being a software engineer after we part ways, instead of waiting tables" also sounds like a strong "sell", but it does not work based on my experience.

It's not about convincing anyone, it's about power and who has it.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#148

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…

Excellent retort, and it doesn't even go far enough: since a non-compete restrains my full ability to command an income, I would expect financial compensation as part of severance for the length of the non-compete period.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

[deleted]

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#150

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'm glad I've wasted their time

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

Wait, there's another approach.

Sign the non-compete, and let them sue you, if they even notice that is, after you're in the new place. I had a boss that did this (which I saw happen live) nonchalantly. And managers are worth going after more than individual contributors in many cases. In the most recent case they went after him and New Company's lawyers came to the rescue. For those readers not in the US, those of us commenting from within the US have different laws in different states. In New York State, the judges typically respect non-competes for one year (even if it says 1000 years in the contract).

One employer of mine tied stock options to the non-compete, in a totally separate document from the offer letter. There has to be something material, otherwise, what are they going to do, beat you up? A restraining order so you can't go to New Company?

Post reply on HN