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

301–310 of 338 posts

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#301

Post by burntsushi »

rsj_hn wrote: post #247
jfengel wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What's strange to me is how people, particularly those in California, think that banning non-competes were somehow a California idea or that CA is the only state that does that. Yes banning non-competes is one of the things CA got right. People who complain are concerned about the things it got wrong. The idea that if you want non-competes then you must also accept insane regulatory burdens isn't really tenable when…

Note that MA somewhat recently passed legislation that more tightly limits the power of non-compete agreement: https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2018/08/articles/non-...

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#302

Post by mandelbrotwurst »

majormajor wrote: post #234
jfengel wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's perpetually curious to me when people blame CA problems on a lack of upzoning and then ... move to much less dense places with plenty of NIMBYism. Sure, you're getting away from the problem, but not because anyone there has a solution - just because they haven't been hit by the same problem to the same extent yet, because "sprawl outwards" works for a long time when you have less geographical boundaries.

Those people probably either (or both) of do not understand the nature of the issue(s) and/or are just as happy being somewhere where they won't be issue(s) for a long time as somewhere that's managed to prevent them in perpetuity.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#303

Post by MereInterest »

wolverine876 wrote: post #91
trentnix wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. 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…

This is something that's truly atrocious about the move to digital-only copies. On paper, I can mark things up, initial them, send them back. The digital copies let me sign, and that's it. There's no in-band way to indicate that a section should be changed, no way to clarify wording. It's a system designed for contracts of adhesion, and nothing else. Heck, most of them will automatically scroll to the next place for a signature, implying that you shouldn't actually read what you're signing.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#304

Post by tartoran »

smichel17 wrote: post #253
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…

Agreed on the first kind. It kind of sort of makes sense in the original context: say I run a bakery. I put it up for sale. You think it's a pretty good deal, so we agree and I sell the bakery to you. Then I take the money you paid me to renovate the building across the street, hire your employees out from under you. Customers quickly learn that the "original" moved across the street, and I'm laughing all the way to…

But the NCC would be for the baker to not work for another bakery within a 40 miles radius and that is terrible, they would not be able to exercise their profession.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#305

Post by lostlogin »

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…

> Edit: eesh, this was a bit of a rant, wasn't it?

Not at all. I'm slightly surprised at the quality of the comments here as a whole, as many show a sentiment that employers would like.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#306

Post by nobody_at_all »

redler wrote: post #220
masklinn wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

If a company doesn't know exactly why and where their competitors are better then them, they are not long for this world.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#307

Post by coryrc »

majormajor wrote: post #234
jfengel wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's perpetually curious to me when people blame CA problems on a lack of upzoning and then ... move to much less dense places with plenty of NIMBYism. Sure, you're getting away from the problem, but not because anyone there has a solution - just because they haven't been hit by the same problem to the same extent yet, because "sprawl outwards" works for a long time when you have less geographical boundaries.

Because you don't need (though it can still be good) upzoning if the population is low and housing cheap.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#308

Post by TheCoelacanth »

MereInterest wrote: post #303
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…

This is something that's truly atrocious about the move to digital-only copies. On paper, I can mark things up, initial them, send them back. The digital copies let me sign, and that's it. There's no in-band way to indicate that a section should be changed, no way to clarify wording. It's a system designed for contracts of adhesion, and nothing else. Heck, most of them will automatically scroll to the next place for…

The existence of the automatic scroll feature should void the contract. They are actively trying to discourage reading the contract. There is no meeting of the minds.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#309

Post by dataflow »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #239
zippergz wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the people claiming (and believing) that they have no intention of suing are not the people who make the decision to sue or not (unless it's an extremely small company, or you are an important enough hire to be discussing this with the CEO and General Counsel). Even if they have the best intentions, some random recruiter or manager really has no insight into this.

Absolutely -- very early in my career, a startup I worked at had non-compete language in my original employment contract (naming very specific places I couldn't be poached to take a job at) and even though the company was very small and the person who made me the job offer was the COO (and they assured me they would never actually excise the non-compete), I still refused to sign until that language was taken out. I a…

> if I was capable of getting those clauses put in my contract when I was 24, others were too)

> It is true that employees, especially lower-level employees, don't always have the leverage to change the contracts they sign (especially at larger companies)

Confused, so do you think this is practical for people or no? There are only so many 3-person startups to go around that would change any terms for anybody...

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#310

Post by dataflow »

wolverine876 wrote: post #91
trentnix wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. 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…

How do you do this when contracts are signed digitally nowadays?
Post reply on HN