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

271–280 of 338 posts

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#271

Post by iammisc »

intricatedetail wrote: post #179
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…

Isn't that simply a harassment? I would report employer to the police and ask for an injunction.

If the employee told the employer to stop contacting them, then yes, it would be harassment.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#272

Post by nobody_at_all »

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…

> Obviously, if I work as a developer making a stock trading app, I shouldn't be making a competing stock trading app after hours.

How is that obvious?

If a single person, regardless of where they work, can produce a stock trading app that would actually compete against what a company is producing, why shouldn't they do it?

People are starting to learn how much power they really have (see the current low wage revolt), perhaps programmers will realize it someday and stop allowing companies to steamroll them.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#273

Post by nfriedly »

hosteur wrote: post #268
nfriedly wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to freelance in the past, and I always charged extra for signing NDAs other than my standard one. Usually it turned out that my standard one was good enough after all, but sometimes I actually got paid for signing the client's "special" NDA. I've never seen any one that egregious, though. I'd charge quite a lot to sign that.

May I ask how much you charged extra for signing the NDA? And was it a one time fee, or a different rate or was it a recurring fee while the NDA was in effect?

I think it was about $200, but it's been like 10 years, so I'm not certain. It was something in that ballpark, though. Basically just enough that I could run it past a lawyer if anything seemed questionable to me.

It was a one-time fee.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#274

Post by TeMPOraL »

throwawaycities wrote: post #148
wolverine876 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 co…

> makes you waive your right to have the case heard by a court in lieu of mediation by a mediator of our choosing

This really should be made explicitly illegal. It should not be possible for an individual to surrender the right to bring a dispute in front of the court.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#275

Post by gitonup »

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…

This behavior by recruiters is wildly frustrating to me even without NDAs involved. I can't count the number of times I've actually been looking for jobs and gotten a coy "I have a role you'd be perfect for" message from a recruiter, then when I ask who the company is they outright refuse to tell me til I get on the phone with them.

For the couple of times I've played ball with this in the past, they've told me who the client is on the phone, so why the secrecy when it's over an asynchronous messaging platform? I don't owe you synchronous time and it'd save us both a lot of headache if you'd just be upfront with who you're pitching.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#276

Post by wolverine876 »

runnerup wrote: post #261
wolverine876 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> EDIT: A non-lawyer's suggestion (talk to a lawyer before you do this): Skip signing or edit documents (cross out and initial sections you don't like, add words - and initial each change) and then sign and send it back. Don't say a thing; leave it to them to bring it up - most people won't bother disputing it with you. My actual lawyer's advice is that doing this can be viewed by a court as "fraud" if it looks like…

> It's their problem if they miss changes, but it's your problem if you used deception to cause them to miss it. This exact thing that you suggested is what he told me I shouldn't do if I want it to hold up in court.

I did not at all suggest trying to cause them to miss the changes. I suggested (with the caveat of asking a lawyer), "Don't say a thing; leave it to them to bring it up". That's a common negotiating tactic, even in amateur or interpersonal negotiations. I'm not imaging they won't see it, I'm imagining they won't want to create problems for themselves by bringing it up.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#277

Post by wolverine876 »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #256
filmgirlcw wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I wonder if that would be necessary. San Francisco is kind of a special case as a small peninsula. That puts limits on the ways it can grow. You could probably build more housing units but you'll rapidly run into limits on streets, utilities, schools, etc. I'm going to push back on this. Manhattan is less than half the size of San Francisco and has nearly four times the population density. The Bronx is roughly the s…

You know what Manhattan has that SF doesn't. Subways[1]. Sure developers would love to build more chicken coops for tech bros. But they absolutely don't want to kick down coin to pay for the subway system needed to support that density. [1] Oh yea SF has BART which was built 50 years ago and not expanded since. And the central subway which is 1.7 miles long, not open yet after ten years of construction and 20 years a…

The famous legend of NYC is that they had the vision to build infrastructure beyond current needs.

Now, it's trendy to view any investment by democratic government as wasteful, and to reduce the taxes by which the community makes that investment to nothing.

What will happen to future generations, who have us as their forbears rather than the visionary New Yorkers.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#278

Post by wolverine876 »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #240
yellow_lead wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty good idea for emailed PDF documents. Typically, I have received a link to a signing service, and editing is not enabled by their UIs of course.

In that case, you simply need to email back before signing with the changes you need made. The company will do that to you if they get something wrong (wrong start date, incorrect pay or bonus percentage), so it is completely reasonable to have a conversation about what adjustments you need made to your contract. The worst they can say is no. And if they say no, that's a sign that you should really think about what y…

A fundamental of negotiations (and human relationships) is not wanting to create problems or appear to be a 'trouble-maker'.

In a recent personal situation, it was obvious serious mistakes were being made and it was obvious what the solution was - painful, but certainly better than the alternative. However, we hadn't yet experienced the consequences, and predictably another other party railed at me for making things unnecessarily complicated.

Employees at businesses don't want to be seen as trouble-makers and have their offers rescinded.

A (manipulative) trick to negotiations is to put the other person in the position of being the trouble-maker.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#279

Post by runnerup »

wolverine876 wrote: post #276
runnerup wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EDIT: A non-lawyer's suggestion (talk to a lawyer before you do this): Skip signing or edit documents (cross out and initial sections you don't like, add words - and initial each change) and then sign and send it back. Don't say a thing; leave it to them to bring it up - most people won't bother disputing it with you. My actual lawyer's advice is that doing this can be viewed by a court as "fraud" if it looks like…

> It's their problem if they miss changes, but it's your problem if you used deception to cause them to miss it. This exact thing that you suggested is what he told me I shouldn't do if I want it to hold up in court. I did not at all suggest trying to cause them to miss the changes. I suggested (with the caveat of asking a lawyer), "Don't say a thing; leave it to them to bring it up". That's a common negotiating tact…

> I'm not imagining they won't see it

As my lawyer put it, if the communication goes like this:

Employer: "Okay great! Just sign these and you can start."

Candidate: *edits documents*

Candidate: *signs documents*

Candidate: "Okay great! Here I've signed 'em. Can't wait to start!"

That _might_ be fraud, regardless of your intent. Because there was no reasonable expectation that there was any negotiation even going on in the first place where any changes could have been expected to have been made. It sounded like different courts might have different opinions on the matter, but he strongly recommended against it.

As long as there was some version of negotiation going on "hey here's the changed document feel free to sign it and get it back to me" then you don't really need to tell them every little thing that changed, if they miss something it'll be much more likely to still bind in court.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#280

Post by gorbachev »

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…

An Amazon subsidiary used to, probably still does, require NDAs for every candidate they'd invite for an in-house interview.

I went though pretty much the same crap you described. They even went as far as to say the NDA is there to protect me. Good thing that conversation wasn't on the phone, because I let out a pretty good belly laugh over that one.

Post reply on HN