Live data from Hacker News

FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

ftc.gov

151–160 of 189 posts

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

#151
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Courts in general require consideration for a contract to be valid, but there is no requirement for that consideration to be proportionate. The company can offer you any new perk, like a free pen, and it counts.

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

#152
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"high state spending for mediocre outcomes" "NIMBY housing policy in every major metro" Prove it and show me it's not an issue in other states "Unsustainable water use for water intensive crops in a state that is mostly desert. " According to ABC https://abcnews.go.com/US/map-ongoing-water-crises-happening... This is a major issue in other states. In fact Jackson Mississippi ran out of water last year yet this hasn't…

> This is a major issue in other states. In fact Jackson Mississippi ran out of water last year yet this hasn't happened in CA "

California gets preferential use of the Colorado river. https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/08/colorado-river-wa...

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

#153
post #111

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…

> 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.

I would argue that's not fair at all. Think about what you're saying: you're saying that your Mexican restaurant should effectively not have to worry about your competition providing a better job to your staff than what you offer. That changes the dynamic so that you don't have to worry about doing your best to retain your staff.

This problem is the crux of why Silicon Valley is so successful (where you can't do this there) and tech hubs in other locations aren't anywhere close to as successful (where you can do this there).

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

#154
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…

Most states have separate employment agreements depending on their peculiar regs. Remote workers have made this more "fun" for legal to keep up with. I had to have state-specific lawyers review the overall employment agreement and the specifics of the IP clauses around side-ventures and open-source.

Workers should be free to employed wherever or start a business that's not lifting IP.

These sort of regs needs to harmonized like UCC. California's model is mostly the right one.

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

#155
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…

Most states have separate employment agreements depending on their peculiar regs. Remote workers have made this more "fun" for legal to keep up with. I had to have state-specific lawyers review the overall employment agreement and the specifics of the IP clauses around side-ventures and open-source. Workers should be free to employed wherever or start a business that's not lifting IP. These sort of regs needs to harm…

What about remote workers crossing country boundaries? Stuff is a lot of fun already, especially in Europe.

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

#157
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most states have separate employment agreements depending on their peculiar regs. Remote workers have made this more "fun" for legal to keep up with. I had to have state-specific lawyers review the overall employment agreement and the specifics of the IP clauses around side-ventures and open-source. Workers should be free to employed wherever or start a business that's not lifting IP. These sort of regs needs to harm…

What about remote workers crossing country boundaries? Stuff is a lot of fun already, especially in Europe.

We are a fully remote 10 people startup. Everyone is in a different country, mostly in Europe. The only option to make it work is to have everyone as a contractor, because setting up legal entities that can do employment around the globe is not feasible for SMEs.

Also there are some companies selling full employment and payroll option, reporting. They might work for large enterprises, but for us it is just easier to limit the talent pool for those who are willing to work as a contractor and pay then more for taking that risk. Global talent pool is larger than any local talent pool, so you find more staff, more talented staff and staff willing to go for more competitive compensation.

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

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My spouse's previous employer humiliated them at their job repeatedly, and then went for blood and sued under the non-compete when they took a job elsewhere to stop the abuse. It was totally vindictive and there was really nothing we could do, as they were a multi-billion dollar company and signaled they'd be happy to just keep spending money, even if they were losing, until they bankrupted us. $30,000 in legal fees…

It seems a first step is to not tell your current employer where you're going next. If they push, just quit on the spot and cut-off communication. Maybe go a month or two without work; by then the old employer is less likely to care, you're old news by then. Be as boring and unmemorable as possible once you've decided to leave, aim so that nobody will even remember your name in 3 weeks (except for trusted friends and…

The employer was already way ahead of you. The original non-compete included a clause that you had 24 hours to inform the previous employer if you took another job at any company that could be seen as competing within a year of leaving. It's not a huge market, and they would have found out if we just didn't tell them. That would have probably gone even worse for us. Our best asset, though I guess not good enough, was that we hadn't been deceitful at all. The only other real choice we had was for my spouse to either not work for a year, or start a completely different career (giving up 30 years of experience in the field).

Thankfully now though, it's mostly all behind us. My spouse is in a new job in a company that the first employer gave the ok to, and in two more months a year has gone by, and they have no more hold over us at all.

The current employer doesn't actually know anything about the situations, as when my spouse took the job the lack of work for the previous three months was explained as, "I was unhappy at the previous job, and I took some time off and helped my aging parents get settled into a retirement home", which was all true. The new employer also wanted a non-compete signed and was a little confused why we pushed back so hard on it. They'd never seen anybody ask for changes in it. They agreed to some changes, but in the end really didn't want to make one that was compliant with state law. We settled for a written statement from their corporate council to our lawyer that said they understood it did not comply and was likely unenforceable.

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

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Water

Seems to be an issue elsewhere, remember Jackson? https://abcnews.go.com/US/map-ongoing-water-crises-happening...

Jackson has water. Flint has water. They simply lack trustworthy infrastructure. This can be fixed by upgrading.

California has infrastructure. They simply lack water. This cannot be fixed by upgrading.

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

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure non-competes are banned in MA? Do you have a source for that?

I was curious, and it looks like they made it hard to enforce, capped at a year, and require a garden pay (50%) period. https://www.upcounsel.com/non-compete-agreement-enforceabili...

Thanks for finding this out
Post reply on HN