The case for banning non-competes • Hacker News Board

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#311

Post by dataflow » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 3:08 AM UTC

ransom1538 wrote: post #296

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)…

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.

What happens if you leave California for a couple days and do a bit of work in another state without a similar clause?

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#312

Post by mindslight » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 3:12 AM UTC

macksd wrote: post #231

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? I feel like I'm yelling at a brick wall when I make a fuss of this, but this happens every time I see a doctor too. I'm asked to sign forms acknowledging I've read and understood long legal documents that they don't have a copy of to show me. "It…

Don't make a fuss yourself. Just cross out the bit that says you've read some other mystery documents and sign the truthful version. Let the receptionist be the one to make a fuss.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#313

Post by Gibbon1 » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 3:41 AM UTC

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.

Well and there is also the old Bart tunnel and more modern Central Subway. And then there are the subway tunnels they have built/building in Los Angeles.

Snippets I've read over the years seem to say that subway tunnels and deep foundations don't tend to fail in earthquakes because they to move with the ground around them. And because they are already structurally strong.

Basically the lack of mass transit to support higher density is because of lack of willingness to pay for it. Unwillingness to pay for public infrastructure is due American economic ideology. Not anything specific to San Francisco.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#314

Post by TheCoelacanth » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 3:45 AM UTC

brightball wrote: post #64

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…

In right to work states, non-competes can’t prevent you from earning a living.

That's not what "right to work" means. "Right to work" laws prevent unions and employers from forming a contract where the employer agrees to only employ members of the union.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#315

Post by filmgirlcw » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 4:19 AM UTC

dataflow wrote: post #309

filmgirlcw wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It was 10 person, but my point is people can still negotiate, even when they are young. And there is still a big gulf between a 300 person company (the startup I was at at its peak) and a 150,000+ person FAANG (where you will have less leverage as a non exec hire).

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#316

Post by hannasanarion » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 4:48 AM UTC

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…

Also, the correct method for preventing disclosure of trade secrets is NDA, not Non-Compete.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#317

Post by hannasanarion » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 4:56 AM UTC

IncRnd wrote: post #93

> Joe Biden says he’s going to ask the Federal Trade Commission to try to ban non-compete agreements In the United States the Executive branch can't write their own law, even if it is to ban non-compete agreements.

1789 called, they want their naive interpretation of the Constitution back.

Congress has the power to delegate regulatory authority to federal agencies. This precedent was established by the 2nd law Congress ever passed.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#318

Post by singingfish » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 5:26 AM UTC

Signing non-competes in australia is pretty standard. Understanding that non-competes are almost always unenforcable in australia is also pretty standard.

I once spent a week in a foreign country under an assumed name because of an unenforcable non-compete - it wasn't because we thought I had a problem it was because of some ongoing acrimonious lawyering between the two companies which we didn't want me to contribute to.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#319

Post by rsj_hn » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 5:50 AM UTC

burntsushi wrote: post #301

rsj_hn wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

I didn't know that -- it's good news. From a free market point of view, you obviously don't want to restrain trade, so that is the right-wing justification for bans. The left wing justification would be about increasing the power of labor. For both right and left leaning states, there seems to be an ongoing battle about non-compete agreements, and there is no reason for the pro-compete side to frame this as purely a left or right issue as there are allies to be had on from all sides of the political spectrum.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#320

Post by ripley12 » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 6:06 AM UTC

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.

That doesn’t seem odd to me. People do what’s best for them, and even if they underatand the dysfunction of North American urban planning well they’re not in a position to fix it.