U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#401

Post by tptacek » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 9:03 PM UTC

jacobr1 wrote: post #222

crazygringo wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But even that has major drawbacks -- if you're not actually working, then you're not building your resume, you're not getting promotions, you're not advancing. And if you find your work meaningful and satisfying, that meaning and satisfaction is gone. Not to mention who determines how much "being paid" means, when compensation isn't just base salary but also variable things like company bonuses, individual performanc…

I would agree these are system-wide less efficient, but shouldn't paid "garden leave" be legal if parties agree upfront?

I assume Garden Leave would remain legal even if noncompetes were struck down nationally. You can pay people not to compete with you, without a noncompete; that's what a job offer is.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#402

Post by fleddr » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 9:03 PM UTC

For those wondering how this relates to hairstylists...

People are not a customer of "Awesome Hair Inc". They are a customer of Laura, whom happens to work for said company. Because Laura knows exactly how to do my hair properly.

So when Laura switches company or becomes an independent, her customers follow her. Awesome Hair Inc just lost half their regular customers. A source of perpetual drama. Now you know why hairstylists are so excellent at bonding with people. It's how you create forever customers.

An interesting variation of this dynamic is found at the very publication of the article: NYT. Some of their journalists have become very savvy on social media, building up an enormous personal following. A following that is loyal to the person, not specifically to NYT. Yet it was NYT that paid for it, as these journalists tweet on the job, as part of their job. At the very least, NYT could hope that this sends a lot of clicks towards their articles, but even that is questionable as increasingly these journalists tweet screenshots of key sections, knowing that nobody on social media actually reads anything.

An awkward marriage, to say the least.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#403

Post by humanistbot » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 9:06 PM UTC

steelframe wrote: post #332

When I was interviewing last year, I cut off an interview loop with a company primarily because I don't reside in California and their NDA was, "Anything you say, anything we say, forever." Since I was also interviewing with one of their direct competitors that I really preferred, I didn't want to put myself anywhere near a legal situation where they might try to mess things up for my career. They freaked out when I…

The thing that makes me so angry is how lightly so many people treat these legally binding contracts.

I showed up to a meetup at some tech company's offices. After putting in my name, I was shown a contract on a small tablet and was expected to click next and sign with my finger. I have normal vision and couldn't read it without putting it right in front of my eyeball. I don't sign anything without reading. I asked if they had a printed copy so I wasn't holding up the entire line.

Their response? "Oh, that's just all standard legal stuff, don't worry about it."

Easy to say when your lawyers wrote it. It turned out to include both a non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreement. I did not attend that meetup.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#404

Post by withinboredom » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 9:09 PM UTC

manicennui wrote: post #205

Robotbeat wrote: post #122

Banning noncompetes would be an awesome policy for economic growth and dynamism. It’s pro-freedom in the useful sense of the word. It’s also incredibly pro-worker. Sometimes you get a win-win-win idea.

Unfortunately the "loser" in this situation is the only group that politicians really care about.

The only loser is the company with the best whatever while all their competitors have a shot at bidding for employees who know the whatever. It tremendously levels the entire playing field.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#405

Post by nibbleshifter » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 9:10 PM UTC

Rayhem wrote: post #132

notch656c wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should be reciprocal if it exists. I.e. if the employee leaves, the company would be barred from hiring anyone else for any remotely similar tasks. Make them taste their own medicine and decide if it's worth it.

It is always interesting to me how much 'morality' (in the sense that an individual/corporation 'should' abide by these rules) can be derived from applying symmetry principles.

The "golden rule".

Only do unto others that which you wish others to do unto you (or something like that, you get the idea).

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#406

Post by DennisP » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 9:11 PM UTC

steelframe wrote: post #332

When I was interviewing last year, I cut off an interview loop with a company primarily because I don't reside in California and their NDA was, "Anything you say, anything we say, forever." Since I was also interviewing with one of their direct competitors that I really preferred, I didn't want to put myself anywhere near a legal situation where they might try to mess things up for my career. They freaked out when I…

I quit a job I'd been at for well over a decade, because the company's new owner was making everyone sign noncompete, non-disparagement, and intellectual property contracts. They would own everything I invented while employed with them, even if I did it at home on my own time, if in their opinion it had anything to do with their business. I checked with a lawyer first, who said it was probably all enforceable in my state.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#407

Post by b112 » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 9:15 PM UTC

humanistbot wrote: post #403

steelframe wrote: post #332

When I was interviewing last year, I cut off an interview loop with a company primarily because I don't reside in California and their NDA was, "Anything you say, anything we say, forever." Since I was also interviewing with one of their direct competitors that I really preferred, I didn't want to put myself anywhere near a legal situation where they might try to mess things up for my career. They freaked out when I…

The thing that makes me so angry is how lightly so many people treat these legally binding contracts. I showed up to a meetup at some tech company's offices. After putting in my name, I was shown a contract on a small tablet and was expected to click next and sign with my finger. I have normal vision and couldn't read it without putting it right in front of my eyeball. I don't sign anything without reading. I asked i…

Their response? "Oh, that's just all standard legal stuff, don't worry about it."

I'm a Canuck, so centuries of legal, common law separation here...

But if someone misrepresents what a contract is, and even more so applies pressure to sign, it's meaningless.

My understanding is that this goes back to "make your mark" and lower levels of literacy, and in modern times, that legalese is gibberish to many, thus misrepresenting what you're signing can effect enforcement/validity.

It's very stupid for them to brush it off like that.

(I wouldn't have signed either, and have walked from jobs and contracts over absurd NDAs. One client actually wanted me to sign a forever NDA, but 1/2 way through the contract! Wtf?! Negotiate that at contract sign, not months later!)

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#408

Post by jackson1442 » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 9:20 PM UTC

humanistbot wrote: post #403

steelframe wrote: post #332

When I was interviewing last year, I cut off an interview loop with a company primarily because I don't reside in California and their NDA was, "Anything you say, anything we say, forever." Since I was also interviewing with one of their direct competitors that I really preferred, I didn't want to put myself anywhere near a legal situation where they might try to mess things up for my career. They freaked out when I…

The thing that makes me so angry is how lightly so many people treat these legally binding contracts. I showed up to a meetup at some tech company's offices. After putting in my name, I was shown a contract on a small tablet and was expected to click next and sign with my finger. I have normal vision and couldn't read it without putting it right in front of my eyeball. I don't sign anything without reading. I asked i…

Yep. Got multiple eyerolls when I was checking in to a testing center for a certification when I actually stopped to read the full page of rules presented to me before I signed it.

Funny enough, they didn't even follow the rules themselves. The "end test" protocol was to raise your hand in the testing room and be escorted out, I sat there for a few minutes then just walked out myself and apparently that's what I was supposed to do.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#409

Post by svillar » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 9:26 PM UTC

Does that mean engineers working at FAANG no longer will be subject to noncompetes?

Amazon is known for enforcing non competes on employees (especially AWS employees) who leave to join the competition.

Their CTO has been vocal about this on Twitter and a quick Google search will reveal a lot more details.

What about job offers that require employees do waive away some rights and agree to arbitration as the only avenue to resolve a labor/employment dispute?

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#410

Post by coredog64 » Thu, Jan 05, 2023, 9:34 PM UTC

throwaway09223 wrote: post #380

bfdm wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That can be solved by setting the payment terms to match some minimum % of total compensation of some period before the paid leave. eg, you get full benefits plus no less than 80% of all compensation of the previous 12mo. Non-cash compensation (eg equity) may be replaced with equivalent cash.

That's an offer, not a solution. What if the offer isn't reasonable? What if the employee is leaving because the equity vesting has dropped off? (eg: leaving after 4 years) > "Non-cash compensation (eg equity) may be replaced with equivalent cash. " What's the equivalent cash value of options? The variability here is huge. Seems better to just ban these schemes entirely, especially considering there's seemingly zero…

What if you allow the new employer to buy out the non compete? So if your old employer low-balls you, the new employer can buy it out on your behalf. If your knowledge is really worth it, that provides an incentive to make the pay worthwhile. Doesn’t help in all cases, so I’d couple that with stronger restrictions on what a company can call a competitor. If there’s a cut for the state, that will provide incentive for them to enforce.

But really the right move here is either no non-competes or employees getting to set their own prices for them. Being on the wrong side of a power asymmetry forces behavior changes.