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

141–150 of 338 posts

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#141

Post by [deleted] »

ghaff wrote: post #126
laGrenouille wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> be financially compensated (significantly, usually on the order of 50% gross salary for the entire period) I think this is the most important protection that's needed in the US. NCCs for high-level executives with golden parachute clauses actually makes a lot of sense. If their former company is essentially paying them (usually a lot!) after they leave during the NCC period, that is unlikely to get abused and overu…

For C-suite execs, I can definitely see it being a reasonable thing. And, honestly, at that level especially in large companies, skills are far more transferable to even totally different industries.

[deleted]

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#142

Post by tobmlt »

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…

Wow, yeah thanks for this. I never have time to study for code challenges... (I am a math/physics/optimization programmer - no code challenge prep background) looks like an order of magnitude more reason not to bother.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#143

Post by plank_time »

The fact that Silicon Valley thrives without non-competes proves that they are unnecessary. It’s just a way for employers to put their claws in employees. If non-competes came with guaranteed 100% salary during the non-compete time, that would be more palatable.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#144

Post by josaka »

j4yav wrote: post #102
tracyhenry wrote: post #86

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).

Patents if they are really secret sauce. If your startup fails because someone finds out what you are working on then you are already doomed.

This is the right answer, and it has implications for the development of patent law: folks cheering the restrictions on NDAs should anticipate that doing so will tend to increase pressure on lawmakers to strengthen patent rights, as those investing in R&D lobby for other ways to protect their investments. Not saying we shouldn't weaken NDAs, though. The amazing last century of technical innovation emanating from California, which has relatively strong limits on NDAs, would suggest it's a good idea.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#145

Post by indymike »

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…

> My state has severely limited non-compete agreements to the point that they’re only narrowly enforceable, if at all.

Same here, but that does not stop the former employer from filing suit and causing havoc for the newly hired employee and their employer. Every time it's happened to someone I've hired, it is a former manager or business owner who is personally angry at the former employee and is trying to harm them. Seems pretty pointless.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#146

Post by ghaff »

achenatx wrote: post #118

As a professional services company we have had a few people over the years shop their contract or try to go direct with the client. They essentially split our gross margin with the client. The client reduces their cost and the employee gets paid more. Our non-compete mainly is focused on not taking our clients.

I've heard those called non-solicitation agreements which seem perfectly reasonable.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#147

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

Buttons840 wrote: post #31
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…

> Some others also went into hiding and lied on their LinkedIn profiles to prevent their old employer from finding out they went to competitors. I avoid telling my employer where I'm going when I leave. There's simply no advantage to me to reveal that information. You can just say your quiting to take some personal time and deal with burnout. Perhaps that personal time is a 2 day weekend before your next job begins.

You don’t even need to say that. My three lines I’ve used for every job are:

The resignation letter simply reads: “Effective today’s date I hereby notify my employer of my intent to resign my position of position on date two weeks from today”. Signed and dated with nothing else.

If asked why, the answer is “I’ve decided to seek opportunities elsewhere”.

If asked where, the answer is “I’d rather not say at this time”.

As you say, there’s almost no benefits and only drawbacks to divulging any other information than that in most cases.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#148

Post by throwawaycities »

wolverine876 wrote: post #91
trentnix wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But my employer does everything. There is no field that my employer is not involved in, somehow. You can guess who they are, probably, or just read my profile. And they say "You cannot do anything that competes with anything we do". Which is everything. Want to make a Sudoku app? That's a game, we do games. Want to do some open source ML library work? We do ML, you can't do ML outside of work (I asked legal that one)…

> They implored me to trust that they had "never sued anyone" and "have no intentions to", and I think they honestly believe that. But then why have the non-compete at all? Exactly. 'That's great; we can resolve that issue easily. Let's just skip the non-compete - you're not using it anyway and I'm not comfortable with it.' EDIT: A non-lawyer's suggestion (talk to a lawyer before you do this): Skip signing or edit do…

Well we have never had to sue anyone because no one has ever actually called our bluff when we send them a threatening demand/cease and desist letter from our lawyers.

So if you decide to call our bluff in the future just know we won’t sue you…because we don’t have to sue, our agreement makes you waive your right to have the case heard by a court in lieu of mediation by a mediator of our choosing, from a mediation company we send all our cases to.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#149

Post by pc86 »

masklinn wrote: post #123
trentnix wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But my employer does everything. There is no field that my employer is not involved in, somehow. You can guess who they are, probably, or just read my profile. And they say "You cannot do anything that competes with anything we do". Which is everything. Want to make a Sudoku app? That's a game, we do games. Want to do some open source ML library work? We do ML, you can't do ML outside of work (I asked legal that one)…

> I'm in a US state that allows non-competes and recently turned down a job because I wasn't comfortable with the non-compete expressly because the company's opinion of its own market was so broad. They implored me to trust that they had "never sued anyone" and "have no intentions to", and I think they honestly believe that. But then why have the non-compete at all? FWIW you can try editing the contract, removing the…

They don't even need to sign it. You've only signed the edited version, so they can either use the edited version or not have a non-compete. If you're comfortable with the edited version it doesn't really matter which one they choose.
Post reply on HN