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

151–160 of 218 posts

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#151

Post by JamesBarney »

hawaiianbrah wrote: post #138
JamesBarney wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?"

Huh. But the hiring firm didn’t sign the non-compete, so how does the first company go after the second?

They threaten them with a tortious interference lawsuit which is defined as "intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm"

This is the reason why employers ask if you've signed a non-complete

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#152

Post by ChrisLomont »

_m96l wrote: post #99
cc439 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The larger the employer, the more bureacracy is involved in the hiring process. Any non-conformance to the standardized process comes with a risk of complete process failure once a corporation reaches a certain size and begins to silo off certain functional groups. I've found myself in many situations where a customer or employee requested something perfectly reasonable to settle a dispute, only for me to find there…

While this may all be true, the upshot is that as individual employees, we have zero leverage or bargaining power against these large employers. Even now, with the great shortage of tech talent - while is repeatedly used as a justification to import an unlimited number of foreign workers - these very same large employers who complain about this shortage, do not hesitate to reject a qualified candidate who will not si…

> we have zero leverage or bargaining power against these large employers.

You have the leverage not to work there. They have the leverage not to hire you. If enough people choose to work there despite things they don’t like, your leverage is not lost because of the company being large, it’s lost because people choose to work there despite things you don’t like.

Companies compete for employees.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#153

Post by ChrisLomont »

mancerayder wrote: post #150
sgustard wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 af…

This is terrible advice. Signing a contract you then willfully violate may cost you significant time and money, and if I found out this is how you operate, I’d never hire you. I suspect many other employers wouldn’t either.

Simply don’t sign such a contract.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#154

Post by mancerayder »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #153
mancerayder wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 af…

This is terrible advice. Signing a contract you then willfully violate may cost you significant time and money, and if I found out this is how you operate, I’d never hire you. I suspect many other employers wouldn’t either. Simply don’t sign such a contract.

found out this is how you operate, I’d never hire you.

You wouldn't find out until I found a new job someplace else, right? And at that point, why would I lose sleep over how incensed you supposedly would be, here, hypothetically?

Worked great for my ex boss. What do you recommend, a person stays unemployed forever because they refuse to sign these unprincipled agreements? Did you read the Bloomberg article?

We're not all Richard Stallman. Some of us have mortgages and obligations. Let's hope more states follow California.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#155

Post by ChrisLomont »

Legogris wrote: post #69
burtonator wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> something silly 1-3 months mutual notice period is common practice in many countries. In France 3 months is standard.

France also makes it very hard to fire a worker, which means hiring carries more risk. That then leads to one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the Eurozone of around 20%.

The US unemployment rates, both youth and overall, are about half of France rates.

Sticky job movement causes friction in both directions, like most sticky economic variables.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#156

Post by linkregister »

mancerayder wrote: post #150
sgustard wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 af…

Part of every formal job application process that I've completed is to disclose any applicable non-competes. All of those companies will not risk violating a non-compete due to the substantial legal risk, placing the employee in another area, or more likely, declining to hire.

This is largely irrelevant for employees in California, due to its commerce and tort law rendering non-compete clauses unenforceable for employment. In the past few years, however, we have seen companies suing past employees for alleged theft of trade secrets. This chilling effect could end up having the same outcome as an enforceable non-compete.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#157

Post by linkregister »

dunpeal wrote: post #147
icelancer wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eng…

Pardon the nerd-sniping: both Uber and Lyft employees in California can job hop, because non-competes are unenforceable for employment (in general) in California.

Otherwise your comment explains it well.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#158

Post by mdpopescu »

perfunctory wrote: post #136
sgustard wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> but why would I hire this one guy who refuses to take it? Am I the only one who finds this asymmetry bizarre? Shell I ask the hiring manger to take a drug test? And why would I work for him if he refuses?

This is actually a great idea. I've never had to take a drug test but I'll remember to mention it if it ever pops up.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#159

Post by amerberg »

JamesBarney wrote: post #109
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.

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?"

Yes, this is exactly how it works. Well, in my experience my CEO threatened me and the new company. I was actually given the choice between a lawsuit and a promotion (with a salary that was almost competitive with the new company) in the course of a single conversation. I chose to stand by my resignation because I'd been very unhappy there and it wasn't going to get any better if I showed them that I could be bullied into line.

I suppose I was lucky that the new company tried to negotiate a bit, but when my former employer refused to budge, they backed out. My lawyer had warned me that this could happen even before I accepted the job offer, right after he assured me that I would be on solid legal ground in taking the job. Admittedly, I didn't really think it would happen because why would they want to be known as the kind of company that does that? Even so, I've never regretted my decision to leave. As stressful as that was, staying would have been worse.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#160

Post by mdpopescu »

Sharlin wrote: post #121
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.

Which part of "this corporation is favored over all other corporations" leads you to the "favor[s] the freedom of corporations" idea?
Post reply on HN