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

291–300 of 338 posts

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#291

Post by kiba »

wolverine876 wrote: post #277
Gibbon1 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's plenty of investments. It's called suburban sprawl, and some people even think it's a tax ponzi scheme.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#292

Post by iammisc »

cactus2093 wrote: post #286
iammisc wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

that's the most it's enforceable to, in the worst possible case, for high-level employees. The vast majority of employees should ignore non-competes.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#293

Post by ceejayoz »

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…

> You know what Manhattan has that SF doesn't. Subways.

Well, yes. And deep bedrock and fairly stable geology that makes them possible.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#294

Post by sib »

wolverine876 wrote: post #277
Gibbon1 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

2 of the 3 subway systems in NYC were built by private companies.

It was only later that all were merged into one publicly-managed one.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#295

Post by decebalus1 »

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…

> 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.

'earning a living' may be a bit ambiguous. What does that actually mean? Would a judge be able to uphold the noncompete just because you would be technically able to take a job at the Amazon warehouse and earn minimum wage - hence 'a living'? Which is bullshit, btw. But just asking.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#296

Post by ransom1538 »

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)…

When I worked in California I would sign any non-compete you want. They are thrown out anyway.

According to the California Business and Professions Code Section 16600, “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” In other words, non-compete agreements are not enforceable in California.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#297

Post by barry-cotter »

ceejayoz wrote: post #293
Gibbon1 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You know what Manhattan has that SF doesn't. Subways. Well, yes. And deep bedrock and fairly stable geology that makes them possible .

If Japan (earthquakes) and the Netherlands (built on swamp) and Shanghai (swamp) can do it so can San Francisco.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#298

Post by barry-cotter »

sib wrote: post #294
wolverine876 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

2 of the 3 subway systems in NYC were built by private companies . It was only later that all were merged into one publicly-managed one.

That was also when expansion basically stopped.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#299

Post by LambdaComplex »

gitonup wrote: post #275
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 t…

Metrics/KPIs. They're probably judged on how many people they manage to get on the phone.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#300

Post by ceejayoz »

barry-cotter wrote: post #297
ceejayoz wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know what Manhattan has that SF doesn't. Subways. Well, yes. And deep bedrock and fairly stable geology that makes them possible .

If Japan (earthquakes) and the Netherlands (built on swamp) and Shanghai (swamp) can do it so can San Francisco.

Shitty soil and earthquakes in combination is a bad combo.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/earthquake-expert-san-fra...

Post reply on HN