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

281–290 of 338 posts

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#281

Post by II2II »

jedimastert wrote: post #266
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?

The implication isn't that you can't work in the same field, but that you could use inside knowledge trusted to you as an employee to get a leg up, which would be more analogues to taking licks and ideas from a hit album and using them in your own.

What if that recording studio considered inside knowledge of the publishing industry gained from your employment with them as getting a leg up? That is more-or-less analogous to what a family member was told when asked to sign a non-compete for a job as a grocery store clerk. (To be specific, the company viewed knowing who their supplies were as reason for a non-compete.)

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#282

Post by ashtonkem »

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…

California is really great in a lot of ways, but the issue that really drives people away from it is cost.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#283

Post by sonotathrowaway »

jonnycomputer wrote: post #58
Teknoman117 wrote: post #33

I lived in Alabama for 4 years or so and at least at the time (I have no idea if it's changed since I left), their non-compete situation was garbage. They were valid and enforceable even if you got laid off or fired. One of my friends' mother got laid off in the 2008 financial crisis from Bellsouth (or AT&T, I don't recall if the (re)merger was finished yet). She was told she couldn't work for any other telecom in th…

Non-competes undermine one of the main ideas underpinning capitalism: the free flow of labor. Otherwise, you're just a damned serf.

That’s a feature, not a bug.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#284

Post by blunte »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #274
throwawaycities wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who contributes most to politicians - individuals, or corporations and PACs funded by non-listed corps?

And actually, who writes a significant part of new bills, some of which become laws? Yes, corps. It's not surprising then that the legal system has some extra benefits for the corporations.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#285

Post by blunte »

runnerup wrote: post #279
wolverine876 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If one party edits a legal document before signing it, and then the other party doesn't read it before accepting it, then that is on the receiver. This tactic is used by lawyers on each other all the time. It's not fraud.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#286

Post by cactus2093 »

iammisc wrote: post #267
lostcolony wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

De jure, maybe, but de facto it most certainly can, as the OP's anecdote attests to.

My business law professor said to just ignore non-competes. Everyone knows the judge will toss it if it's preventing you from earning a living. Any state that allows non-competes has statutory provisions for earning a living. If not, this is part of the common law in every jurisdiction. Non-competes cannot conflict with the public policy. Except for very few instances in which the previous company must show that the…

> Maybe they can't work in Birmingham for a year or two. But they must be able to work elsewhere in the state.

You're arguing that noncompetes are no big deal, but then you're saying you might have to move to an entirely different city to be able to find a job? That seems like a pretty big deal if it's enforceable even to that level.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#287

Post by mindvirus »

mrweasel wrote: post #10

You don’t exactly need to ban them, but the employees should be compensated during the non-compete period and limit the lenght of the non-compete contract. In Denmark my employeer can’t make non-compete contract for more that 12 month, during which I’m entitled to 60% of my salery. It’s also only valid within the same field. That is: You can’t jump from Microsoft, developing Windows, to Apple and work on macOS, but y…

Honestly I think it should be 200% of your last year's compensation.

I think everyone wins - easier to enforce, but will only be enforced against people where it's really worth it.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#288

Post by avereveard »

A ban would be wildly exaggerated. As an employee you get privileged access to a wealth of trade secrets, so a compromise on your liberty to act upon these is needed.

What they need is regulation; non compete need monetary compensation, if not during the time of employment, at least for the entire period they remain enforced after employment, with a regulated minimum compensation proportional to a significant fraction of what was the employment salary

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#289

Post by avereveard »

nfriedly wrote: post #273
hosteur wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a steal, I charge a 500/mo fee for my current (and I'm still employed with them, there's no provision for continuing the NDA after employment)

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#290

Post by runnerup »

blunte wrote: post #285
runnerup wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If one party edits a legal document before signing it, and then the other party doesn't read it before accepting it, then that is on the receiver. This tactic is used by lawyers on each other all the time. It's not fraud.

I'd hesitate to rely on your advice here. Here's a relevant story:

https://a16z.com/2014/02/06/why-i-did-not-go-to-jail/

More specifically to this exact discussion, see California Civil Code 3399:

> When, through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, or a mistake of one party, which the other at the time knew or suspected, a written contract does not truly express the intention of the parties, it may be revised on the application of a party aggrieved, so as to express that intention, so far as it can be done without prejudice to rights acquired by third persons, in good faith and for value.

This would allow an employer to seek reformation. It's not clear to me as a layperson if this reformation could apply retroactively or not.

Or this interpretation of the consequences of a recent case in Virginia: https://www.virginiabusinesslitigationlawyer.com/when-negoti...

The actual decision: https://www.virginiabusinesslitigationlawyer.com/wp-content/...

The facts of this case do not mirror exactly what we're talking about here, so I'm definitely not trying to give legal advice. Maybe this wouldn't apply -- reading through it, it's a bit more egregious than what we're talking about here.

Post reply on HN