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

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#161

Post by ThrustVectoring » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

mancerayder wrote: post #154

ChrisLomont wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

>What do you recommend, a person stays unemployed forever because they refuse to sign these unprincipled agreements?

You don't need to be that dramatic about the non-compete. What you do is you ask HR via e-mail whether the non-compete is negotiable or a mandatory requirement for employment. If it is mandatory, then you have written proof that the non-compete is a contract of adhesion, so you simply need to budget for a lawyer to sue to nullify it on termination. If it is negotiable, then you don't sign the non-compete, or sign a non-compete clause that actually compensates you at full or partial salary for the time spent not competing.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#162

Post by ThrustVectoring » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 5:45 PM UTC

NoblePublius wrote: post #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 enfo…

Did you go back and strike the non-competes already signed, too?

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#163

Post by Buttons840 » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 5:50 PM UTC

microDude wrote: post #54

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 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…

You had to hire a lawyer to get out of signing the additional agreement? Why did you sign the additional agreement?

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#164

Post by mancerayder » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 5:53 PM UTC

linkregister wrote: post #156

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…

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 emplo…

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.

I haven't seen this yet in NY, although I have been contracting for several years.

In the case of my ex-boss, he told New Company right away as he was being hired, and they had already the legal setup to watch his back. Lawyers came after New Company, and then eventually it went quiet.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#165

Post by iaw » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

ixacto wrote: post #71

_m96l wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You naively conflate "not biting" with "having no teeth". Amazon forces all workers to sign non-competes. They only sue those who piss them off. Granted, a small minority. But that minority suffers a harrowing ordeal, typically losing their new job and their…

Didn't know that, also FUCK AMAZON from now on. But what are they going to do? Some sort of civil suit is not that big of a deal if you have your assets appropriately sheltered. Although this makes me hate Jeff Bezos just a little bit more. Hope he loses it all in the divorce battle.

> But what are they going to do? Some sort of civil suit is not that big of a deal if you have your assets appropriately sheltered.

I think this statement minimizes the severity of being sued. The stress of a civil suit that threatens your long-term livelihood is a very big deal, daily uncertainty for prolonged period of times about important parts of your life can cause a lot of nasty health problems.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#166

Post by coupdejarnac » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

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?

I did something similar in an interview because things had already gone south. I asked to see code from the hiring company, because I didn't want to work on a poor codebase. It didn't go over well, lol.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#167

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 6:00 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #46

deogeo wrote: post #44

Shockingly, 'right to work' laws don't forbid non-competes.

'right to work' has nothing to do with labour laws. A 'right to work' state only requires that unions are not mandatory. They hurt unions because everyone usually benefits from union negotiations, but in right to work states, they don't get the same funding.

[deleted]

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#168

Post by resalisbury » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 6:03 PM UTC

Occupational licensing is another form of non-compete agreements. Only instead of the employer preventing employees from moving to a a new company, occupational licensing prevents professionals from (1) crossing state lines or moving into new professions.

https://hbr.org/2018/04/more-and-more-jobs-today-require-a-l...

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#169

Post by amerberg » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 6:06 PM UTC

ilikehurdles wrote: post #30

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.

Yet despite the fact that only _maybe_ executives should be subject to enforceable non-competes, it is the case that just about every new hire has to sign a non-compete clause at most tech companies. In fact, the only people with enough leverage to successfully be able to push back against a non-compete are the very execs who the non-competes are meant for. You're right that the fear has more power than the non-compe…

About a year ago, I lost a new job before starting because the new company didn't want to deal with legal threats from my former employer. They agreed with my lawyer that my former employer wouldn't have a strong case, but they expressed concern that it would look bad for them to be involved in litigation.

The CEO who had been threatening to sue me and the new company was removed in June, presumably for unrelated reasons. Last week, he announced that he was taking a job which _my_ noncompete certainly would have prohibited me from taking.

Now, I don't know if he had a noncompete with my former employer. Perhaps he was able to negotiate it away. Maybe he was granted permission. Maybe he'll get sued, but I think that's unlikely because they have to know the new company will have his back and that they don't stand a chance of winning.

Whatever the case, it shows who the system works for.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#170

Post by johnnycab » Sun, Jan 13, 2019, 6:44 PM UTC

EliRivers wrote: post #127

paxys wrote: 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…

>you have to wonder how things would have gone if Shockley's traitorous eight could never have come into existence due to non-competes

You also have to wonder how litigious the society was at the time; the legal framework and protection available was probably not mature enough in a industry going through renaissance. However, it is certainly different today and the poignancy is encapsulated in this quote by Tom Gallo: When you get sued by a big corporation, you lose no matter what

https://www.wired.com/story/book-excerpt-science-of-ultra-pu...