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

81–90 of 224 posts

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#81

Post by diob »

paxys wrote: post #40

Over the years so many different jurisdictions around the US and the world have stated their desire to be the "next Silicon Valley" and have poured an immense amount of money and effort to make it so, whether in the form of incentives for businesses, tax breaks, education, job training, or even just straight paying smart people to move there. Every such scheme has generally failed because they refused to emulate the…

Right, the idea is to train + pay them well enough that they stay. It helps the local economy because rather than your business putting more into investments around the world (or wherever the rich store / grow their money), that person puts the money in the local economy.

Folks understand this, but their pay depends on them not understanding it so. . . here we are perpetually.

Funny enough, paying folks well often will pay dividends for your business in the long run. So long term they would make more money.

Humans are unfortunately quite short sighted, which I'm fairly sure nothing can be done about. We're just fancy animals after all.

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#82

Post by vkou »

paxys wrote: post #40

Over the years so many different jurisdictions around the US and the world have stated their desire to be the "next Silicon Valley" and have poured an immense amount of money and effort to make it so, whether in the form of incentives for businesses, tax breaks, education, job training, or even just straight paying smart people to move there. Every such scheme has generally failed because they refused to emulate the…

> Every such scheme has generally failed because they refused to emulate the one key piece of California law that is necessary for a startup ecosystem to exist – banning noncompetes.

As I look out the window of my Seattle apartment, observing a literal forest of new construction, sky-rocketing rents and costs of living, I must interpret the tech boom here as 'the next Silicon Valley failing', because Washington state has had a very strong form of non-competes prior to 2020, and a somewhat strong form of non-competes today.

Or, maybe I can choose to believe my eyes, and note that the the presence or absence of non-competes isn't a very important factor for driving a tech boom. [1]

It is a popular topic to bikeshed over, though.

[1] As a sibling poster points out, non-competes are absent in Canada, and yet nobody can accuse any locale in Canada of being the next SV...

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#83

Post by indymike »

One of the best features of legislating against non-competes is that an employer can't sue a former employee for violating a non-compete. Right now, for most occupations in my jurisdiction (Indiana, USA), non-competes are usually not enforceable, but it costs $500-$2500 to get these lawsuits thrown out. Some employers will sue former employees knowing they can't afford a defense, or just to throw shade on them at their new job.

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#84

Post by noasaservice »

jaxn wrote: post #54
lazide wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Admin assistants (like actual admin assistants) usually have access to full customer contact lists, and exposure to rather intimate details of the business and executives lives. They’re definitely not comparable to security guards in that sense.

Every admin assistant should be under an NDA / Confidentiality agreement. Same for personal security. But those are not non-competes.

If they're that important, then the company should pay a significant percentage of their pay to keep them from doing their profession, or GTFO.

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#85

Post by CaptainJack »

The UK has had a government call for evidence on the subject of non-compete, with the aim of limiting them as well, but nothing has been done so far.

I'm myself in the long, lengthy and costly process of trying to fight a two years non-compete (well, 1yr garden leave + 1yr non-compete), and it's taxing. It adds stress, makes it harder to market yourself, and on top of that there is this clear asymmetry where the costs if it was to go to high court (£150k) would be huge for you, but petty change for your employer. On top of that, they'd get to claim these as expenses (so pre-tax), but you couldn't get any kind of tax-credit (so effectively post-tax). System is biased, it's about time they would change it.

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#86

Post by andirk »

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.

My Attorney General and my state fully agree with me in no uncertain terms thanks [0]. Feel free to add all those "we're not responsible at all!" clauses that ski resorts add which are also not enforceable. Thanks for the downvotes.

[0] https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bont...

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#87

Post by vxNsr »

paxys wrote: post #40

Over the years so many different jurisdictions around the US and the world have stated their desire to be the "next Silicon Valley" and have poured an immense amount of money and effort to make it so, whether in the form of incentives for businesses, tax breaks, education, job training, or even just straight paying smart people to move there. Every such scheme has generally failed because they refused to emulate the…

Yup kinda interesting to see this play out. With the federal trade secrets law tho it no longer matters.

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#88

Post by deathanatos »

bigmattystyles wrote: post #61
deathanatos wrote: post #18

Good riddance to this form of wage suppression. Let's do forced arbitration next.

For some reason (I never dug deeper), my friend who is an attorney said she prefers arbitration. Maybe because she already is an attorney? The only thing I can think of is that it is more expedient and having seen behind the curtain the talk of biased arbiters (biased towards the Goliath) are exaggerated. But if anyone can opine I'm all ears.

I've yet to hear a single valid reason for forced arbitration. I have nothing against two parties, at the time of a dispute, who want to engage in arbitration, in doing so.

There's also numerous stuff that should, IMO, fall into class action, but gets divvied up in forced arbitration, to the point where it isn't worth the time and expense for the individuals in the class to continue to pursue justice. (Although there have been some novel DoS style mass-arbitrations … that's more of a means of trying to force the corporations hand into a normal class action, and towards justice.)

Normally the reasons cited for arbitration are things like "the courts are slow" or "the courts are expensive" or "the courts are overwhelmed" — but you could still just do arbitration at the time of dispute with those. Saying that forced arbitration is better from these arguments is non sequitur.

There's also a conflict of interest between the chosen arbiter and the company. (And conflict of interest is independent of bias; a good arbiter can very well be unbiased, but it is easier for everyone involved to believe that if there isn't a conflict of interest.)

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#89

Post by dpkirchner »

JackFr wrote: post #70
jahewson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then why didn't Dunder Mifflin sue the Michael Scott Paper Company?

Because they didn't reach out to the very real lawyers at Boston Legal.

Re: Laws barring noncompete clauses spreading

#90

Post by lovich »

prirun wrote: post #78
lazide wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is being banned are non-competes that don’t pay someone to not compete. There are legitimate reasons for actual non-competes in many of these cases, and CAlifornia for instance just requires you pay them for it. Which in such a situation seems justified.

> What is being banned are non-competes that don’t pay someone to not compete. Employers will just say "the no-compete compensations is built in to your pay".

They can say anything, but the behavior has gotten enough voter anger to make politicians view this as something to regulate, so their opinion on the matter is quickly going to lose any weight
Post reply on HN