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

101–110 of 189 posts

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

#101

Post by hhh »

rendaw wrote: post #84
kabdib wrote: post #55

About 20 years ago I joined a large company in California, where non-compete clauses are essentially disallowed. A few years later, I moved to the company's offices in Washington State, where non-competes are allowed. Before the move I emailed HR and asked if I needed to sign the WA state employment agreement (with that non-compete clause) and they said "no". I saved that email. Forward a decade, I resigned to work f…

They didn't have a new contract for you with the local provisions when you got raises, etc? That's how companies I've worked for have forced new things in.

I have only ever signed a new contract when I changed entities entirely. Within orgs I haven’t had to do so. I’ve changed salary or role 4x in the past year internally and it might as well be updating a db record.

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

#102

Post by devnullbrain »

topkai22 wrote: post #70
TulliusCicero wrote: post #4

We really need general regulations on non-competes. Bare minimum, it should be required that a company pay you a full salary if they want to block you from seeking employment elsewhere with your skills. If a company really cares that much about stopping competitors from taking advantage of your skillset, they need to be willing to pay up.

I posted on the parent as well, but I find non-competes reasonable only if they are time limited (like 6 months to a year), very narrowly tailored and affect a very small number of job openings. I think Google blocking someone from going to Bing ridiculous, but a stoping a move from being the chief of staff at Google Maps to the chief of staff at Bing maps is far more reasonable.

Even preventing direct lateral moves prevents... competition. Where would we be without the Traitorous Eight?

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

#104

Post by tobinfekkes »

topkai22 wrote: post #70
TulliusCicero wrote: post #4

We really need general regulations on non-competes. Bare minimum, it should be required that a company pay you a full salary if they want to block you from seeking employment elsewhere with your skills. If a company really cares that much about stopping competitors from taking advantage of your skillset, they need to be willing to pay up.

I posted on the parent as well, but I find non-competes reasonable only if they are time limited (like 6 months to a year), very narrowly tailored and affect a very small number of job openings. I think Google blocking someone from going to Bing ridiculous, but a stoping a move from being the chief of staff at Google Maps to the chief of staff at Bing maps is far more reasonable.

Bing Maps has a chief of staff??

Chief of what? People use Bing Maps?

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

#105

Post by quadrifoliate »

They "cracked down" on...two glass manufacturers and a security firm?

Posting this on the website and claiming that it constitutes "vigorous enforcement" shows just how ineffective these underfunded Government agencies typically are. They rarely choose to go after large companies, who can keep flouting regulations with impunity.

Smells like an Abacus Federal Savings Bank [1].

----------------------------------------

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus_Federal_Savings_Bank

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

#106

Post by devnullbrain »

josephg wrote: post #43
jjallen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a previous employer know what a former employee is telling their current employer about what they know from their former employer? Not saying anything is right or wrong, just that when something is illegal doesn't mean it prevents that crime.

> 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…

>You can protect your data, and your code. But you can't really stop someone quitting a job at your company, working somewhere else and reimplementing a software system that worked well. It might take years to do it, but probably not decades.

I don't even think this case is undesirable. If we were welders, it would be absurd to be prevented from using a welding technique we learned on the job at a new employer. System design is just a technique.

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

#107

Post by closeparen »

nceqs3 wrote: post #87
loeg wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's similar in Washington. If you make less than $116k, no non-competes. Otherwise, get fucked. https://lni.wa.gov/workers-rights/workplace-policies/non-com...

How dare quants get paid $5m to sit on their couches for two years after leaving their firms! Congress must act!

Non-competes that pay you at or near your salary during garden leave are a different thing. The bog-standard non-compete in a normal SWE or IT position prohibits you from making a living at all.

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

#108

Post by closeparen »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #4

We really need general regulations on non-competes. Bare minimum, it should be required that a company pay you a full salary if they want to block you from seeking employment elsewhere with your skills. If a company really cares that much about stopping competitors from taking advantage of your skillset, they need to be willing to pay up.

Ok. Your salary is $1, but we reliably pay a bonus of $250k.

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

#110

Post by makeitdouble »

rendaw wrote: post #84
kabdib wrote: post #55

About 20 years ago I joined a large company in California, where non-compete clauses are essentially disallowed. A few years later, I moved to the company's offices in Washington State, where non-competes are allowed. Before the move I emailed HR and asked if I needed to sign the WA state employment agreement (with that non-compete clause) and they said "no". I saved that email. Forward a decade, I resigned to work f…

They didn't have a new contract for you with the local provisions when you got raises, etc? That's how companies I've worked for have forced new things in.

It depends on the base contract.

I’ve had both cases, with one company coming up with contract “additions” every now and then with super specific terms, including monetary amounts etc. The other companies usually had one single broad contract mentioning that any other provisions would be explicited in the company’s general HR policies. The HR policies get regularily revised, and employees didn’t need to sign every single change.

IMO it probably comes down to transparency. The company going the super granular route had many specific clauses negociated at an individual level, and stuff they wouldn’t want to have in a semi-public document any other employees could look at.

Post reply on HN