Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The case for banning non-competes

slowboring.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 338 posts

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#81

Post by k__ »

mabbo wrote: post #23

There 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…

There are more.

I have some that state, I can't work directly with clients of my clients.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#82

Post by YetAnotherNick »

Scarblac wrote: post #72
lifeformed wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> And that your at-work trading app code would be influenced by ideas you have at home.

Umm, but you are also taking money from your employer so you can't say that in reverse.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#83

Post by mathattack »

mabbo wrote: post #23

There 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…

It’s a good reason to keep quiet. :-)

What’s interesting about the first case you cite is those types of NDAs help individual companies but hurt the ecosystem.

Wherever there’s a large grouping of world class firms, they benefit in aggregate from cross-pollination. Think NYC for banking and advertising, CA and Seattle for tech, Houston for energy, Etc. One reason people can chase the best ideas in CA is non-competes aren’t enforceable. But in any individual case someone leaving hurts the firm they were previous employed at. So firms still push for non-competes.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#84

Post by rovr138 »

Scarblac wrote: post #72
lifeformed wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>And that your at-work trading app code would be influenced by ideas you have at home.

Which is an issue legally. Who owns the code? Who needs the license to use it?

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#85

Post by etothepii »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #15
fallingknife wrote: post #2

Should be a requirement that, to be enforceable, a non-compete must pay the agreeing employee his salary for the duration of the agreement.

Yeah the good old garden leave. I wish.

My 3 months in the garden was some of the best time of my life.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#86

Post by tracyhenry »

A noob question: how can a small business get to keep the secret ingredient of their success if employees are allowed to jump ship as they wish?

From the employee perspective banning non-competes are ofc the best thing. But this feels terrible if it means that secret sauces of small startups will get copied easily (potentially by bigger players).

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#87

Post by elliekelly »

masklinn wrote: post #60
elliekelly wrote: post #51

Earlier 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.

But I don’t think this is nearly as true as you think it is. In Massachusetts, for example, if you were laid off your non-compete may be completely void and unenforceable. In some states the clause is only enforceable if the employee is given consideration for entering into the agreement and continued employment is, by law, not valid consideration. Other states have specific rules about how the non-compete clause must be written or provided to the employee: given X days before signing, notifying of right to counsel, etc. In large multinational corporations with standardized employment documents it’s hard to keep up with all of the changes to local law so the provision in your agreement might be invalid in your jurisdiction on its face.

There are so many factors to consider but so often people just assume defeat and don’t even bother to seek out legal advice. And that’s only to management’s benefit.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#88

Post by etothepii »

rytis wrote: post #41

I'm in this pickle right now. It's a scare tactic. New employer would not take a bet, and that's understandable. Current employer responds with the most vague legalese possible to my straight up question "are you going to enforce?". The choices are: a) take a gamble against an entity that has so much more to fund their legal team than I will ever dream of or b) suck it up. Take a guess what most people pick, even if…

Have you checked if your legal fees might be covered on your home contents policy.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#89

Post by lostcolony »

ghaff wrote: post #22
closeparen wrote: post #7

This is why it’s a little ridiculous to think there could be a “tech hub” outside California. Sure maybe you have a lot of tech jobs in the same place, but that is of no consequence to the people who work them, since they’re all in binding non competes.

The idea that everyone who isn't in California is subject to draconian non-competes is California exceptionalism nonsense.

This is a bit out of date, but - https://www.beckreedriden.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Non...

There are three states where non competes are essentially not permitted. California, Oklahoma, and North Dakota.

Now, certainly, it's up to the company whether or not it imposes a non-compete, and to what it covers/applies to. It might be that you never took a job with one. But I've been subject to them at every place I've worked outside of California. While they haven't had any particularly large effect on me, I've definitely had to go back and read the fine print when considering a job change once or twice (not to mention when it came to hiring past colleagues).

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#90

Post by codingdave »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #5

My state has severely limited non-compete agreements to the point that they’re only narrowly enforceable, if at all. That didn’t stop one of my previous employers from using non-compete scare tactics against employees. Many of us left in a large exodus when benefits and bonuses were cut and management made a number of other bad decisions. The company responded by sending remaining employees an e-mail with a list of c…

> might be at risk of being sued.

Being alive puts you at risk of being sued. The question is whether they have a case. As you said, an actual attorney would roll their eyes, but people still get scared.

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it - don't let lawyers bully you. If they have no case, that is the end of the story. If they do have a case, it gets more nuanced. But most of the time, lawyers are just sending out letters as scare tactics, with no bite to them.

Especially when it comes to non-competes, each jurisdiction is quite different. Where you live has a large impact on whether or not a lawyers pursuing a non-compete agreement actually have a case. Educate yourself on your local laws, ask an attorney, but don't let anyone bully you into holding back your own career moves.

Post reply on HN