I had a non-compete at a previous employer that prevented me working in tech altogether for a year after quitting. Fortunately I managed to get out of that when they made me redundant. I doubt it'd stand up in court, but it's pretty shocking all the same.
The case for banning non-competes
71–80 of 338 posts
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Obviously, if I work as a developer making a stock trading app, I shouldn't be making a competing stock trading app after hours. Why is that obvious? If I work as a studio musician can I also be working on my own album after hours?
If you're using melodies and samples from work hours, then maybe not. And it would be tough to argue that your at-home trading app code is completely uninfluenced by ideas you have at work.
> And it would be tough to argue that your at-home trading app code is completely uninfluenced by ideas you have at work.
And that your at-work trading app code would be influenced by ideas you have at home.
You're a craftsman making trading apps, some for an employer, some for yourself, it's what you do. It's strange for an employer to be allowed to force you to stop doing the others without compensating you for it.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#73There are two kinds of non-competes, and both have problems. First, there's the really nasty ones saying "If you ever work here, you can't work for any competitor for X years", and they're clearly abusing of employees, labor, etc. I hope there is a straight up ban on that. The second kind is "You can't compete with us while you work here". And that is a much more complex beast. Obviously, if I work as a developer mak…
> We do ML, you can't do ML outside of work (I asked legal that one). Keep in mind the legal department represents your company , not you. They will tell you the interpretation of the non-compete most favorable to their client. It doesn’t mean it is correct or even enforceable.
Sure — but if they use that interpretation to decide whether to pursue a lawsuit, then it's relevant to you even if it turns out to be unenforceable. (See the last couple paragraphs of this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27857407)
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#74There are two kinds of non-competes, and both have problems. First, there's the really nasty ones saying "If you ever work here, you can't work for any competitor for X years", and they're clearly abusing of employees, labor, etc. I hope there is a straight up ban on that. The second kind is "You can't compete with us while you work here". And that is a much more complex beast. Obviously, if I work as a developer mak…
> Obviously, if I work as a developer making a stock trading app, I shouldn't be making a competing stock trading app after hours. Why is that obvious? If I work as a studio musician can I also be working on my own album after hours?
Many employers see their markets as zero sum game.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#75I lived in Alabama for 4 years or so and at least at the time (I have no idea if it's changed since I left), their non-compete situation was garbage. They were valid and enforceable even if you got laid off or fired. One of my friends' mother got laid off in the 2008 financial crisis from Bellsouth (or AT&T, I don't recall if the (re)merger was finished yet). She was told she couldn't work for any other telecom in th…
Non-competes undermine one of the main ideas underpinning capitalism: the free flow of labor. Otherwise, you're just a damned serf.
I wonder if the "I have read the Terms and Conditions" checkbox has some responsibility for this.
I'm constantly amazed at how many people don't seem to understand that a contract is a negotiation. Most people wouldn't dream of taking a job that didn't pay enough financially, but agree to jobs with awful terms and conditions because they didn't read. We are all used to contracts that are too long to understand.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We do ML, you can't do ML outside of work (I asked legal that one). Keep in mind the legal department represents your company , not you. They will tell you the interpretation of the non-compete most favorable to their client. It doesn’t mean it is correct or even enforceable.
Problematically though, in most of the US ridiculously broad NCCs are enforceable. The only place where you're safe is California, where the only way for an NCC to stick is related to business (co)-ownership (selling the business, dissolving a partnership, or dissolving an LLC). Out-of-state NCCs are also un-enforceable in California.
You made a very general statement! They are enforceable because usually the violator is doing something ridiculously broad. Like going to work for McDonalds R&D after leaving Burger King as the VP of product design.
My anecdotal experience:
I once worked for a major bank and someone who left another major bank held a meeting with developers of a next-gen platform where he basically explained, in explicit detail, his old employer's entire platform. I would argue a non-compete would be 100% enforceable here.
Another time, I was threatened to not use any IP from a startup I helped start. I specifically asked early on for an agreement to share the rights to my code. On my last day this agreement was terminated and the non-compete took precedence. Consulting with several lawyers (not in california) told me that it would be an uphill battle for the business to win against me as the optics of a large corp suing an individual doesn't bode well for the plantiff. Unless you started a multi-million dollar revenue generating project, which in that case I was advised to settle as a peace offering.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#77Should be a requirement that, to be enforceable, a non-compete must pay the agreeing employee his salary for the duration of the agreement.
In Germany, a non-compete can only be enforced for up to two years and pays 50% of the last salary (by law).
I believe this is true in most European countries, with minor variations.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#78In a world that is constantly touting competition drives innovation, it seems strange to me that this was ever legal.
Restricting the industry a person can work in, or the ability to switch between companies at will only serves to harm the employee and their ability to negotiate their compensation.
I've only signed one non compete, and where I am they are only enforceable in the county they are signed in, and even then it started the relationship with the employer off on the wrong foot, I didn't stay long.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
You live in a serious bubble if you think the typical person can shrug, say "what's $200K," and casually leave or take a break from the field they've been earning a living in.
We are talking about people who's company actually used the non compete. These are not typical people.
I had a non-compete when I was making $50k
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#80I have never encountered a non-compete in my home state of Texas, so I looked this up:
https://www.texasnoncompetelaw.com/articles/noncompete-agree...
It appears in Texas non-competes are a thing, but only to restrict the direct transfer of business/market responsibility to a competing business, which I imagine generally applies to only senior executives and sales agents.
It seems at one point almost all of the travel industry, except Expedia, was located in my area and people were bouncing between competing employers all the time without any limitation. People were even leaving their employers to found competing businesses without limitation.
As somebody who has never had to deal with this madness it seems strange that any state would want to wound its own economy by restricting employee mobility.