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

211–220 of 338 posts

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#211

Post by seanhunter »

glenneroo wrote: post #206
seanhunter wrote: post #197

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 w…

Well since you didn't sign the NDA... care to divulge who was making this preposterous "offer"? ;)

I currently don't know. Just dealt with a random agency who was representing them.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#212

Post by cwkoss »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #194
arcanus wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Society wants people to contribute productively. Stopping someone from working to protect business secrets is antisocial and bad for society.

Really, companies should have to pay >100% salary as a disincentive to idling valuable labor.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#213

Post by adrr »

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…

The second one is worse than that. You’re a line cook and due to businesses not wanting to pay benefits. You can only find part time gigs. Forced to sign a non compete now limits your options for a second job.

Line cook is an extreme example but it happens to other professions like personal trainers. There has been cases where non competes were forced on restaurant workers.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#214

Post by MrStonedOne »

Quanttek wrote: post #205

I don't get the following quote: > The main idea of the non-compete agreement is that employers want to stop people from walking off the job and taking trade secrets to rival companies. If companies weren’t able to secure those protections, they’d need to pay lower salaries, and we’d all be worse off. If employers lack such "protections" (i.e. non-competes), wouldn't they need to pay a higher salary, so that their wo…

This is misinformation 101, state a detailed premise, tie it in with some cause and effect that sounds plausible, make no attempt to back up the synthesis.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#215

Post by verall »

jfengel wrote: post #209
vineyardmike wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My offer letter explicitly stated that starting work (and accepting the stated pay) constituted agreeing to all the docs sent over, unless explicitly agreed upon otherwise. I can't wait to have enough savings to quit and move to california where the employee protections are so much higher.

It's interesting to hear you say that, moments after coming from a thread where people were explaining why California is so terrible. I feel like the symbol of the 2020s is Chesterton's Fence[1], people chafing against restrictions and then having to reinvent them. I'm sure that some people are indeed fleeing California, and will then immediately start reinventing it. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. The rein…

Maybe we could keep the protections for labor and drop the many additional protections for landowners.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#216

Post by kbenson »

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)…

> They implored me to trust that they had "never sued anyone" and "have no intentions to", and I think they honestly believe that.

It doesn't matter what they believe, because a company does not have the same consistency of goals and actions as a person, and even a person can't be entirely trusted on things (even family sometimes turns on each other if the circumstances are sure enough). A company? Their entire board and management might change over time, or they might be bought out and have another entity with different goals.

Put another way, when considering and NDA during hiring, you should consider whether you would work for Oracle under the same NDA. Because what would happen if Oracle bought (or bought a controlling interest) in that company tomorrow? Do you still think you could go on past behavior with regard to legal action?

This is the exact same with privacy, and that's where I usually bring this up. It doesn't matter that I think Google is unlikely to do anything bad with the private info they have about me right now. I'm more worried about the Google (or whoever ends up with the data) five, ten or fifteen years from now.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#217

Post by pc86 »

tacon wrote: post #199
pc86 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good point that I definitely overlooked. I was assuming the NC was a distinct document.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#218

Post by slymon99 »

This is entirely different from garden leave (a non-compete period where you remain on payroll but are not working), correct? This seems like a fair version, where if a company thinks their trade secrets are that important (often true in finance), they have to pay you your salary for the period of the non-compete.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#219

Post by filoleg »

b3morales wrote: post #180
api wrote: post #16

Require companies to pay employees some percentage of their former salary (e.g. 20%) for the period of a non-compete, otherwise it is unenforceable. That would ensure that companies only bother to enforce non-competes when the stakes are high and it's serious, and prevent them from basically IP-trolling former employees by making such a thing unprofitable.

I have a very hard time with anything less than 100%. You're talking about preventing people from using their main skills to put food on the table. And frankly, even 100% discounts the professional development that comes in the natural course of employment. You will have missed opportunities for skill advancement and networking. After 2 years not working because of the non-compete, how are interviews for the next pos…

If that becomes the norm, attitudes towards it will change, because then you won't be perceived by hiring people as at a disadvantage, since everyone will be going through this.

Of course, right now it sounds ridiculous, as the percentage of your current candidates with 1-2 year working gaps is a minority.

The reason I believe this will work is because that's how it works in finance right now. 1.5-2 year long non-competes, you get paid full salary for those periods (minus the annual bonus). And you can make the same point, what are they gonna do in terms of personal projects? Kind of difficult to imagine someone trading hundreds of millions in some specialty equities for a hedge fund and then going back home for 2 years and doing the same kind of a "side project" there. Nothing they can do by themselves at home is comparable to what they could at the job. And yet, this is literally the norm now, and those people don't have any issues interviewing and getting jobs afterwards at competing finance shops.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#220

Post by redler »

masklinn wrote: post #116
grepfru_it wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Like going to work for McDonalds R&D after leaving Burger King as the VP of product design. Don't rightly see why there would be any issue with that. If you bring McD IP to BK, then that's an IP theft issue. > 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 platfor…

At what point does an explanation like this turn into "here's an inside look at exactly how their platform outcompetes you in area X"? Where does one draw the line?
Post reply on HN