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

171–180 of 189 posts

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

#171

Post by kabdib »

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.

They did not. Raises and promotions happened as usual. The two contracts were mostly the same, with the non-compete section added in the WA version.

I don't think that HR really understood my question, but I sure wasn't going to clarify things for them!

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

#172

Post by dragonwriter »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #168
themitigating wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're moving the goal post from "water issues " to "unfair control of water sources"? I assume you'll have an argument about why their preferential control of the Colorado river is wrong? It must be difficult for you right now after you've continually digested right wing opinion that "California is bad" not asking if there was substance behind that premise.

I'm not the OP. I actually like the initiative system. I'm saying that water issues in other states is a result of California's preferential rights. Which explains why "this hasn't happened in CA". If you fully read the article I linked you'd see that water restrictions have indeed happened at various times over the years in California. Part of the reason California hasn't "run out of water" like Jackson Mississippi…

> I'm saying that water issues in other states is a result of California's preferential rights.

There is a reason the word “senior” is used for those rights; those were part of the established landscape when the upstream states use developed.

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

#173

Post by anonymouskimmer »

dragonwriter wrote: post #172
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the OP. I actually like the initiative system. I'm saying that water issues in other states is a result of California's preferential rights. Which explains why "this hasn't happened in CA". If you fully read the article I linked you'd see that water restrictions have indeed happened at various times over the years in California. Part of the reason California hasn't "run out of water" like Jackson Mississippi…

> I'm saying that water issues in other states is a result of California's preferential rights. There is a reason the word “senior” is used for those rights; those were part of the established landscape when the upstream states use developed.

Yes, sure. I don't see how that detracts from the point I made, or the original poster in this thread made.

A pound of carbon dioxide is the same problem wherever it is emitted. Likewise a gallon of water from the Colorado is the same problem wherever it is taken out. The Colorado water supply problems are equally the responsibility (and fault) of California as they are the other states and Mexico which pull water from it. Legalese doesn't change this.

California's water use has recently been unsustainable. Much of this water is used to irrigate formerly arid lands which have historically been used for high water needs agriculture. This is true.

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

#174

Post by ShredKazoo »

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.

I think the argument would be that if Google knows that Bing could hire its chief of staff at any time, that will cause Google to invest less in R&D because that R&D could fairly easily be obtained by a competitor.

I assume intellectual property law is sufficient to cover this case in practice though, because Silicon Valley is in California where noncompetes are unenforceable, and Silicon Valley is not exactly known for lack of R&D investment.

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

#176

Post by TulliusCicero »

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?

This angle is strange to me.

A salesman doesn't exist as an island. He's selling products or services from a particular company, no? And if he leaves, he would then be selling products or services from a different company. Yes, maybe some clients will like the salesman enough to switch suppliers, but surely the fact that it's a different company with at least somewhat different products/services matters too, no?

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

#177

Post by TulliusCicero »

closeparen wrote: post #108
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.

I meant total compensation.

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

#178

Post by TulliusCicero »

cma wrote: post #7
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.

That still is anticompetitive.

Well, maybe, but in practice companies would only rarely use it, since they wouldn't want to pay for someone to not do work.

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

#179

Post by shukantpal »

MiddleEndian wrote: post #95
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.

That money is the premium embedded in their income

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

#180

Post by shukantpal »

Conan_Kudo wrote: post #153
MBCook wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You didn’t read the comment. It’s not about getting a job in a restaurant within 1 mile - but rather opening a restroom yourself in that radius.
Post reply on HN