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

111–120 of 189 posts

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

#111

Post by MBCook »

DrewADesign wrote: post #33

I'm not clear on why those non-competes were illegal when others aren't. Any lawyers in here willing to shine their flashlight on the right rabbit hole for me to descend? (I do have some experience in legal research tools and documents by proxy as a developer, just no significant knowledge of law.)

Some levels of non-compete would be legal according to most people. If you work as a chef at my Mexican restaurant, it seems fair to bar you from opening another Mexican restaurant within say 1 mile. For a year.

Simple, small, limited conditions to stop certain behaviors.

As to why many industry/business non-competes are legal? There’s a good chance they may not be. But until taken to court we don’t really know.

I’d be curious to know why these companies were chosen. Were they especially bad? Or just the companies they had the best evidence against?

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

#112

Post by ClumsyPilot »

wikibob wrote: post #74
topkai22 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s far less reasonable. If you are skilled in being the chief of staff at google maps, it is likely your highest market value is in that particular niche. Restricting your employment opportunities to those where you don’t have the highest market value through the use of non-competes is absolutely unethical and needs to be banned.

its not about ethics - its theft. They are fraudulently manipulating the market for competitive salaries in a particular job.

It should be treated in the same way as other kinds of market fraud, insider trad8ng and rigging are treated.

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

#113

Post by avsteele »

avsteele wrote: post #8
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.

Then how would a company protect it's trade secrets?

Look, I understand most of you here are on the employee side, but please try and think through how this works in the real-world. And not for mega-corps, but smaller business who have ~0% chance of litigating a trade secrets case.

There are dozens of small optimizations in my tech that where painstakingly discovered through years of research and iterative improvement. These are not cost-effectively patentable.

Even if you believe the trade secrets 'work' do you think companies are going to document every design of optics, electronics, laser frequencies, rf powers? Then if we did then we'd get a series of posts about how onerous the regular confidential info acknowledgement forms are for the employee.

Not to mention, once it becomes 'commonly known' via disclosure, it may not even be protectable anymore.

Non-competes sidestep all these issues. Sure, if they are overly broad its bad, but they have an important role to play.

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

#114

Post by moate »

vsskanth wrote: post #31

This is a step in the right direction. However, I don’t know how much more the FTC can do on a case by case basis. I’m curious if the Supreme Court has taken up cases about non-competes and analyzed if they violate the constitution since they clearly block individual freedom to pursue a living.

I promise you, the current court would never make that ruling, and may feel that we give too FEW deferences to the logic of our very good corporate overlords.

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

#115

Post by russdill »

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.

Incidentally, part of making an updated employment agreement binding is consideration (such as a raise). Just telling you to sign something out else you're fired is harder to enforce.

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

#116

Post by moate »

SideQuark wrote: post #72
nkrisc wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of the specifics of any regulation, the burden should be on the company and should err on the side of the employee’s benefit. It’s never fair to pit an individuals livelihood against a corporation.

Can a salesman leave and take all his clients with him, even if there were given to him by the company?

I’m a dyed-red socialist so please explain something to me: why is this a net bad for society? Presumably the clients are leaving for a reason, so wouldn’t that just be the market doing what it’s supposed to (matching demand with supply)?

Why are all these lazy entitled companies not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and doing everything they can to keep customers?

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

#117

Post by nickff »

dexterdog wrote: post #37
themitigating wrote: post #25

[flagged]

The cancer warning label thing is one. It's basically slapped on just about everything now so everybody either ignores it or blindly follows it and in both cases the law is not helping the consumer. It has also driven up the cost of producing goods which is passed on to the consumer because companies either avoid the cert and apply the label or go through the time and effort of getting the cert.

There’s no de jure recognized certification that I’m aware of; if you’ve seen one, I’d love to learn about it!

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

#118

Post by loeg »

SQueeeeeL wrote: post #80
loeg wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked remotely for a multi-state employer in the past. If I was a California employee on my last day, no non-compete. If I was a Washington employee, 1-2 year non-compete. I considered traveling to California to switch job locations and resign.

[flagged]

Did you respond to the wrong comment by mistake? I don't think this is responsive to my comment.

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

#119

Post by loeg »

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!

The standard and legal minimum for WA employers is no compensation for the non-compete period. Also, the vast majority of workers that make more than $116k do not make $5 million annually, either before or after leaving their non-compete employer.

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

#120

Post by smeagull »

loeg wrote: post #118
SQueeeeeL wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Did you respond to the wrong comment by mistake? I don't think this is responsive to my comment.

That'd require people to read comments, and that's not really a thing we do here anymore.
Post reply on HN