The case for banning non-competes • Hacker News Board

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#331

Post by ripley12 » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #327

ripley12 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> People do what’s best for them People have many motives, including themselves, their communities, their businesses, their countries, their co-workers and neighbors, strangers on the street, etc. If they only acted selfishly, there would be no community, country, business, etc.

Perhaps “people need a place to live” would have been a better way to phrase that.

Any solutions to North America’s urban planning woes will take decades, if they happen at all. I don’t fault anyone who can’t wait that long.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#332

Post by rapind » Sun, Jul 18, 2021, 5:34 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...

> There are only so many 3-person startups to go around that would change any terms for anybody...

This depends entirely on their terms, how many potential hires read and care about their terms, what sort of talent they are looking for, and how attractive the position is.

Sure it's a hassle for the 3-person startup, but I imagine this is much harder with Big Co. where the hiring manager may ask legal to make changes for a great potential hire and legal tells them to take a hike.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#333

Post by Siira » Sun, Jul 18, 2021, 3:03 PM UTC

lifeformed wrote: post #52

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?

If you're using melodies and samples from work hours, then maybe not. And it would be tough to argue that your at-home trading app code is completely uninfluenced by ideas you have at work.

Laws should be written to increase long-term production, and protect the weak. I do not see how this law does either. It's classic bullying.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#334

Post by 946789987649 » Sun, Jul 18, 2021, 8:03 PM UTC

lucideer wrote: post #254

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. A lot of siblings have pointed out that this isn't the case (I'd agree), so it's maybe worth digging into why you (and likely many people) think this should be the case. My guess is it's to do with IP and trade-secrets, but that's clearly already covered by IP law and absolutely doesn't n…

I suppose enforcability? It's easier to tell when someone has created a completing application vs whether they were purposely doing bad work (or are just incompetent)

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#335

Post by RIMR » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 3:29 PM UTC

I have never signed a non-compete. An employer sent me home with an envelope full of employment paperwork once, and it included a non-compete. I shredded it, and returned everything else signed. They never noticed until they attempted to enforce it against me when I found a new job, and then they had nothing to stand on.

It's one of the first questions I ask when interviewing now, and I treat it as an absolute deal-breaker.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#336

Post by iammisc » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 9:01 PM UTC

decebalus1 wrote: post #295

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…

> 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 jus…

No. It has to be in your same profession. So if you are fired from being a software engineer and that's how you make a living, the company cannot prevent you from doing software engineering wholesale. They can't even prevent you from working in their particular vertical, unless it is highly restricted in geographic area.

However, if you're a software engineer for vertical X and that's how you make your living, then they can't prevent you from taking a job in that vertical.

Things change a bit if you know trade secrets.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#337

Post by hnfong » Fri, Jul 23, 2021, 5:39 PM UTC

runnerup wrote: post #290

blunte wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

It's pretty eye opening how comments like this gets down voted.

Is providing legal information with authoritative sources in a thread like this somehow offensive?

(I've wised up personally, never try to do that myself again lol)

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#338

Post by masklinn » Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 6:43 AM UTC

walshemj wrote: post #262

masklinn wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are two kinds of non-competes, and both have problems. There are more kinds of non-competes. Neither of the kinds you're listing is blanket-legal anywhere in Europe, as far as I can tell, but there are still NCC/NCAs. Generally speaking, in Europe, NCC/NCAs must: * show a reasonable business interest, mere competition does not ever qualify * be geographically limited * be temporally limited (rarely more than…

And normally in the UK and a believe Europe the more senior you are the more likely a NC would be valid.

Which tracks: the higher in the food chain the more you’d be privy to strategic information and to-be-disclosed deals (e.g. bug contracts) allowing severely undermining or kneecapping the company.