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

191–200 of 338 posts

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#191

Post by jtsiskin »

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…

Go ahead and make a Sudoku app. No one at Amazon will care. Contribute to the ML library. The worst that will happen in practice is they ask you to stop, but even that seems unlikely.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#192

Post by blhack »

Somebody downthread made what I thought was a joke about Jimmy John's requiring employees to sign non compete agreements.

Apparently it wasn't a joke: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jimmyjohns-settlement-idU...

>The Jimmy John’s agreement prohibited employees during their employment and for two years afterward from working at any other business that sells “submarine, hero-type, deli-style, pita, and/or wrapped or rolled sandwiches” within 2 miles of any Jimmy John’s shop in the United States

This is absolutely absurd. I worked on JJ's when I was in college. I honestly had no idea that this was a thing.

These companies know that these contracts are almost certainly unenforceable, but they also know that their employees won't have the money to fight them. No acceptable.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#194

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

arcanus wrote: post #164
heipei wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany, a non-compete can only be enforced for up to two years and pays 50% of the last salary (by law).

Why not 100%?

You don't think there should be any consideration for the fact the person is not performing any labor? They are still able to pursue employment in non competing fields.

In a world where non-competes were funded 100% it seems like it should be the GOAL of every employee to be fired from a position where a non-compete needs to be enforced in order to secure extended paid vacations.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#195

Post by wonderwonder »

trentnix wrote: post #62
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…

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)…

That is the US justice system in a nut shell. Its really just a threat for large companies to bleed people until they cannot afford to fight anymore. They dont need to win, they just need to stay solvent longer than you can.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#197

Post by seanhunter »

Had a fun one just happen to me in the last few days. I got contacted by an agent out of the blue.

"Hey Sean we've got a role that you seem perfect for, just sign this NDA so we can talk." I look at the NDA and it includes a noncompete for the duration of the project + 12 months after. The nda is also not mutual so the noncompete and nondisclosure is only binding on me not the other party. In fact I don't even know who the other party is or what they do. Only if I sign this then for an undisclosed period of the project + 12 months _whether or not I get the job_ I can't compete with them whatever they do.

I get back to the agent and say there's no way I can sign a noncompete until I know what it is I'm committing not to compete with.

The guy spends several days trying various desperate negotiating tactics "I spoke to my boss and he says there really is no risk to you if you sign this, it's totally standard"... "I spoke with our CFO and you have to sign for us to proceed"....(That's great for your boss and CFO but I'm the one on the hook here if I sign, not them) "The noncompete really doesn't commit you to anything, but you have to sign..." (if it doesn't commit me to anything there's no downside to you removing it) ... "The client is so secretive and the project such a big deal we can't risk it leaking..." etc. At each point I just held firm and said there's no way I can sign a noncompete unless I know what I'm committing not to compete with.

After one more go of "there's no way we can go ahead without an NDA in place" (even though I've already said I'm happy with the NDA as long as they strike the noncompete clause) I said "OK well in that case it's 'no thanks' from me".

24 hours later they get back to me with "What about if we tell you who the client is, will you sign then?". I'm just letting them marinade for now...

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#198

Post by s1artibartfast »

k__ wrote: post #74
tshaddox wrote: post #32

Earlier 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?

Many employers see their markets as zero sum game.

Many markets are zero sum

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#199

Post by tacon »

pc86 wrote: post #149
masklinn wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If the non-compete is just a part of the overall employment contract, that means you are working without a contract. That can be problematic if the contract establishes benefits for you, like your salary, your bonus, your vacation, etc., etc.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#200

Post by gpderetta »

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 was a good rant
Post reply on HN