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

FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 189 posts

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#91

Post by josephg »

RajT88 wrote: post #58
josephg wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would a previous employer know what a former employee is telling their current employer... They don't. What I learned while working for your company isn't your company's property any more. Good ideas almost always eventually spread in our industry. And I think thats a good thing for software as a whole! You can protect your data, and your code. But you can't really stop someone quitting a job at your company, w…

> What I learned while working for your company isn't your company's property any more. Good ideas almost always eventually spread in our industry. You are only thinking about code. Imagine knowing all the dirty secrets about how your company screwed customers. I have seen employment contracts forbidding working for a customer, in addition to competitors and in addition to an NDA.

Again, that dirty laundry eventually being aired is a good thing for our industry. There need to be costs to being a scumbag, even if the cost is just to your reputation.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#93

Post by TreeRingCounter »

loeg wrote: post #77
themitigating wrote: post #25

[flagged]

Almost everything out of the initiative system (arguably, the design of the system); high state spending for mediocre outcomes; "big" (state) government in general. NIMBY housing policy in every major metro. Unsustainable water use for water intensive crops in a state that is mostly desert.

[dead]

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#94

Post by TreeRingCounter »

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #28

I wish federal law would just abolish non-competes completely. When I gave advanced notice to Tudor Investment that I would be quitting they threatened to fire me with cause so that they could still enforce the non-compete without paying me in accordance with NY state law. And they followed through with their threat, sending me a letter telling me I was being terminated with cause the day I officially quit. To make t…

[dead]

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#95

Post by MiddleEndian »

topkai22 wrote: post #54

I worked for (and my wife still works for) a small company that provided a boutique set of engineering services. They had a non compete that was very narrowly tailored and called out by name the competitors that you couldn’t go work for directly (6 months or a year), all of which were also small companies. That sort of non-compete that seems reasonable to me- very specific, time limited, and only for people with actu…

There's an easy solution to this: They can offer you some amount of money not to work for those competitors for 6-12 months, and you can accept it, deny it, or renegotiate it.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#97

Post by soonerroadie »

webinvest wrote: post #47

From the article: > “In its complaints, the FTC said the restrictions constituted an unfair method of competition under Section 5 of the FTC Act. In each case, the FTC has ordered the companies to cease enforcing, threatening to enforce, or imposing noncompete restrictions on relevant workers. They also are required to notify all affected employees that they are no longer bound by the noncompete restrictions.” Here i…

Do you happen to be currently in law school?

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#98

Post by genocidicbunny »

steveBK123 wrote: post #90
jmyeet wrote: post #61

Noncompetes should 100% require full-paid gardening leave to be enforceable. You don't want me ot work for a competitor for a year? Great. You get to pay me full pay and benefits for that year. Let's see how keen companies are to enforce a noncompete then. Even then they should be limited in scope but without paid gardening leave they should be utterly unenforceable.

Paid noncompete (gardening leave) is pretty common on Wall Street. It has gotten much more prevalent in the last 5-10 years, with companies ratcheting up the length and enforcing it on lower and lower level employees. Think - IC software engineers working on some random UI with no idea of current positions or trading strategies, making like $300k total being put on a 12 month leave. The problem even with paid noncomp…

> The problem even with paid noncompetes is that you are only getting your salary, not bonus and in the roles it is enforced, salary kind of caps out and bonus ends up being 25%.. 50%.. 75%+ of your income.

Which is why they should be required to pay your TC+xx%, including any costs you may incur for things like health insurance, not just your salary.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#99

Post by jonathankoren »

umeshunni wrote: post #60
themitigating wrote: post #25

[flagged]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_... Someone should compile a listicle of the "10 worst California propositions" or something like that

Fun fact: To be Prop 65 compliant, you just need the ubiquitous warning label, and there's no penalty for over warning, so just stick on everything and you're done.

Speaking of which...

Prop 65 Warning: This post contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#100

Post by steveBK123 »

genocidicbunny wrote: post #98
steveBK123 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paid noncompete (gardening leave) is pretty common on Wall Street. It has gotten much more prevalent in the last 5-10 years, with companies ratcheting up the length and enforcing it on lower and lower level employees. Think - IC software engineers working on some random UI with no idea of current positions or trading strategies, making like $300k total being put on a 12 month leave. The problem even with paid noncomp…

> The problem even with paid noncompetes is that you are only getting your salary, not bonus and in the roles it is enforced, salary kind of caps out and bonus ends up being 25%.. 50%.. 75%+ of your income. Which is why they should be required to pay your TC+xx%, including any costs you may incur for things like health insurance, not just your salary.

Right, some sort of total compensation weighted average with more recent years weighted more heavily.

I forgot the other fun thing is that any of your deferred compensation is zero-d out as soon as you resign, even though you might be on garden leave for 12 (and now some cases, 18) months.

Post reply on HN