Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

businessinsurance.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 224 posts

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#41

Post by rdiddly »

bhaney wrote: post #10

> Nobody likes being told when they’re about to hire someone that that person does not make enough to be eligible for a noncompete Am I supposed to feel sorry because a business has to choose between either paying an employee more, or not restricting what that employee does after they leave? Let me get my tiny violin.

Yeah it's a weird thing to say. Nobody likes being told they're going too fast to be eligible for immunity from speeding tickets either, and yet they chose what speed to travel in that jurisdiction didn't they.

Also the law isn't really about enforcing what people "like," otherwise you wouldn't need a law.

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#42

Post by mywittyname »

Natsu wrote: post #3

IMHO, companies should have to compensate the employee for the period of the non-compete since they're still effectively working for them. Salary limits are okay, but don't really go far enough. If they want this it has a value and should be compensated for fairly.

This would make things interesting.

I kind of want to see what would happen if states passed laws saying that all non-compete clauses contained an implicit agreement that the employee be paid their entire salary (including bonuses) for the pro-rated duration of the non-compete and that such clauses can be triggered by either party.

We all know the value of a non-compete clause is $0 for most employees. Hell, they are probably most effective at bullying unproductive workers who hate their jobs into staying on too long, thus might actually be a net negative for employers.

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#43

Post by jahewson »

lazide wrote: post #27
ec109685 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already laws against Admin assistants from taking full customer contact lists from one job to another. You don't need non-competes to enforce that.

Really, which laws are those? The only ones I’m aware of would be trade secret laws, but they’re dubiously applicable to bare customer contact lists. You can make contractual restrictions of course (company property), but good luck being able to prove they actually took it unless they’re really dumb. Merely contacting all, or many, customers for instance wouldn’t prove it. Being able to show they work for competitor…

lol, no. Confidential business information is an area heavily protected by law. Customer lists are the canonical example.

It’s much easier to win this kind of civil suit than a criminal case. The court can absolutely crush a business that is founded in this manner to compensate the former employer.

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#44

Post by yamtaddle »

whimsicalism wrote: post #24
shadowgovt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a chance to visit Norway recently, and this was something that a tour guide impressed upon us about the culture; she gave an example of a restaurant in town that was caught skimming pay, and it wasn't just a union representing restaurant workers they heard from; they found themselves unable to find someone to repair plumbing or their storefront (the plumbers and glaziers wouldn't work with them), and their ingr…

This also happens in the US, it just isn't reported on heavily by the media. When the dining workers at my university in the US were campaigning for a contract, teamsters blocked most truck deliveries to the university

Labor action generally is barely reported on in the US. You have to go to far-left media like Democracy Now to hear about most of it. People who don't seek that out could be forgiven for thinking unions in the US almost never do anything at all.

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#45

Post by mywittyname »

andirk wrote: post #36

Am I the only one who doesn't add any inventions and doesn't care about a non-compete clause because I will never honor it and come at me bro if you want to try to enforce it? I respect making sure the company doesn't steal someone's previous IP and I respect a company guarding their own IP. But I also respect that a person can work wherever the f they want without a previous company having any say.

> and come at me bro if you want to try to enforce it?

I spoke to an employment lawyer who told me in pretty clear terms: the company can come after you to enforce one if they like; it's a tossup as to whether or not it will be upheld; and regardless, it will cost a pretty penny to fight.

I'd personally would not want to have that hanging over my head.

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#46

Post by exabrial »

shagie wrote: post #30
exabrial wrote: post #16

I think a better system is an up-front repayable bonus: "We'll pay you $2k on sign-on, but you have to stay for 2 years" or something. This benefits job applicants (extra money!), employers (retention), and protects applicants (employers abusing non-compete agreements for everything), and is a far easier legal process to execute.

That's attempting to solve a different problem (employee retention) than non-competes attempt to address in their original form. For example, how does a company prevent (setting aside the "should they" debate) an employee from: 1) leaving and starting up a consultancy for installing former employer's software (competing with company professional services) 2) leaving and starting up a new company that is a competitor…

1) That would be IP theft, and is already covered by other laws.

2) That is the problem I think this solves: retain your key employees. Maybe pay them a bit better than that 2% annual raise.

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#47

Post by aliqot »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #6
DebtDeflation wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It jumped the shark a few years back when Jimmy Johns tried to force their "sandwich artists" to sign non-competes.

Does JJ refer to their employees as sandwich artists too? I thought that was just a Subway thing. But yeah, beyond ridiculous, as if a JJ employee is going to leak some crazy trade secret to Subway or whoever.

Everyone knows you spread mustard from right to left. We aren't knaves.

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#48

Post by paxys »

andirk wrote: post #36

Am I the only one who doesn't add any inventions and doesn't care about a non-compete clause because I will never honor it and come at me bro if you want to try to enforce it? I respect making sure the company doesn't steal someone's previous IP and I respect a company guarding their own IP. But I also respect that a person can work wherever the f they want without a previous company having any say.

You're not the only one, but this kind of "I'm a sovereign citizen!" defense also won't hold up in court for a second if the company actually wants to come after you.

The vast majority of people don't run into such issues simply because they aren't important enough and/or haven't produced anything of value to waste a lawyer's time over.

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#49

Post by joebob42 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #37
joebob42 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if they're willing to pay it, it seems like it probably means this is a real issue rather than just a way to punish employees who leave, and it seems like they're reasonably compensating employees for the problem.

i think they are probably slightly disincentivizing leaving if they are only paying base salary. someone who knows more will have to chime in, i didn't even remember this was called gardening leave

Yeah, that's fair, if I only got base salary I'd be pretty strongly disincentivized to take such a deal.

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#50

Post by yellowapple »

> Colorado employers have expressed frustration with the new law, said Carrie Hoffman, a partner with Foley & Lardner LLP in Dallas. “Nobody likes being told when they’re about to hire someone” that that person does not make enough to be eligible for a noncompete, she said.

Pay up or shut up. It's that fucking simple, and these abusive employers should not only be grateful that these clauses haven't been outlawed outright (as they should be), but also grateful that there's an earnings cap at all, let alone one that's low enough to exclude large swaths of the professional workforce.

Post reply on HN