Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 514 posts

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

#431

Post by bluefirebrand »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #429
b112 wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 misrepres…

Shouldn't this invalidate basically every software EULA/TOS?

How often do EULA/TOS type documents actually get tested in court?

I had a prof in university who was pretty sure majority of them wouldn't stand up to an actual legal case.

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

#432

Post by teawrecks »

MiddleEndian wrote: post #316
eclipsetheworld wrote: post #27

In Germany we have non-competes, however, the employer has to continue paying the ex-employee (a part of) their salary for the non-compete to have any effect.

Even that seems too much in favor of non-competes. Instead it should simply be treated like another job that I can quit at-will. If you don't want me to work for a competitor, pay me some amount of money we negotiate like a salary. It's up to you if you think it's worth enough to pay me not to work, and me to be paid enough not to advance my career how I choose during that time.

Agreed, but how is that different from what the person you replied to said? I assume they can't pay someone for their silence against their will. Or maybe I'm wrong.

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

#433

Post by notch656c »

sagarm wrote: post #372
salawat wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I do expect Congress to either build up that expertise, or hire their own staff yo do the footwork for them. The Library of Congress, in point of fact, was established to fulfill that very need. Congressional research. Also, until Gingrich in the 104th-ish Congress convinced them to shut it down in the 90's, the Legislative branch had their own independent Office of Technology Assessment research arm which to my…

The end result of Congress not being able to delegate to experts will be under regulation and lobbyists running rampant.

.... as opposed to under regulation, lobbyists running rampant, AND tyrannical delegated "experts" as we have now.

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

#434

Post by steelframe »

bumby wrote: post #389
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 personally know several people in my state who had their careers impacted due to threats from former employers over an NDA I'm curious, was there any actual legal action or was it just the threat? I'm not dismissing the fact that a threat can create enough risk to make someone change their behavior, but I've also heard these NDAs are tough to legally enforce. Of course, nobody wants to be the one calling their bl…

> I'm curious, was there any actual legal action or was it just the threat?

One particular instance that stands out in my mind was for someone who I saw hired into the company for a specific role with a certain scope. The previous company's HR then sent a letter to the new company's HR telling them about the employee's obligations under the NDA. The new company's management decided the prospect of a legal issue was too much a hassle, so they reassigned the new hire to a different role outside their direct area of expertise and with a smaller scope for a year.

AFAIK, there was never really an opportunity for the employee to say, "No, don't do that, I'll shoulder any legal responsibility if the previous company decides to get nasty about this." The simple "it would be a shame if something were to happen" letter between HR departments was all it took to put the worker in a career tarpit for a year.

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

#435

Post by djur »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #159
notch656c wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets be honest, the common American does not have the bargaining power to corrupt anyone powerful in their favor unless they move to the third world where their dollars go further and corruption is even more accessible.

This is the point of left IMO: to collectively develop the power to corrupt things in favor of workers. This was the point of Tammany Hall. Some Irish immigrant off the boat in 1890 was not a Democrat because he believed in liberalism, but because his ward healer got his brother a job in the sanitation department. When organized labor is strong, they can get Democrats to pass pro-labor policies. The point of all poli…

I agree to an extent, but I also think this is kind of kicking the can down the road: how do workers collectively decide what is in their interest and what isn't? The historically successful socialist answers to this question have generally ranged from "something that looks a lot like liberal democracy" to "something that looks a lot like oligarchic despotism".

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

#436

Post by djur »

fleddr wrote: post #402

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 hai…

News outlets already have social media policies (often inconsistently enforced, but they exist). If they were really worried about their employees using their good names to kickstart their Substack they could do something about it. In reality, NYT and others actively seek out writers who get a lot of engagement on social media.

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

#437

Post by thwayunion »

bcaine wrote: post #152
thwayunion wrote: post #139

IMO the link should be changed to the FTC's press release, which has no paywall and provides a better summary: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/... You can read the proposed rule and the full notice and factsheet here: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/federal-register-no... Of note, an FTC commissioner (Trump appointee, so a minority voice in the executive atm) released a dissenting…

Do you know how to publicly comment? I couldn't find a way on the press release or their website.

The notice will be posted on regulations.gov. You can leave a comment there.

It's not posted yet. The public comments should open shortly. Set a reminder for Wednesday next week and it'll almost certainly be up on regulations.gov.

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

#438

Post by foobiekr »

endisneigh wrote: post #411
foobiekr wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be careful what you wish for, there are significant non-salary benefits (stock ESPP and RSUs, healthcare subsidy, etc.) that matter a lot. These employers would just restructure compensation to effectively recreate low-cost non-competes.

Not a big deal, could just say income as reported on your W2, then. Not to mention employers already enforce non competes and don’t pay anything.

Everything is a big deal. Details matter. "Salary" is not what you want.

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

#439

Post by ElevenLathe »

djur wrote: post #435
ElevenLathe wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the point of left IMO: to collectively develop the power to corrupt things in favor of workers. This was the point of Tammany Hall. Some Irish immigrant off the boat in 1890 was not a Democrat because he believed in liberalism, but because his ward healer got his brother a job in the sanitation department. When organized labor is strong, they can get Democrats to pass pro-labor policies. The point of all poli…

I agree to an extent, but I also think this is kind of kicking the can down the road: how do workers collectively decide what is in their interest and what isn't? The historically successful socialist answers to this question have generally ranged from "something that looks a lot like liberal democracy" to "something that looks a lot like oligarchic despotism".

Sure, that's the tough part of left politics. Capital has it easy, they can just pay people to do what they want. We have to get along and (more or less) agree.

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

#440

Post by chadash »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #279
chadash wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference. Paid gardening leave means that the employer actually has skin in the game. I'd bet that 9 times out of 10 they won't actually enforce these non-competes if they actually have to bear some cost (certain industries might be exceptions). The problem with the status quo is that an employer will have the non-compete in play regardless of whether the "competition" would really hurt them.

When I look at the last decade of my employment, my base salary is less than 10% of my overall comp. Maybe even 5%. For high demand folks (the kind we read about in executive emails between Apple and Google and so on) it seems very possible that a company would opt to pay 10% of the employee's comp to deny them from the competition.

> the kind we read about in executive emails between Apple and Google and so on

In other words, the kind of person who is actually in a position to negotiate the terms of their contract. What bugs me most about the current situation is the ubiquity of non-competes for low salary employees, who have the least amount of leverage to negotiate contracts. I'm much less concerned about staff engineers at tech companies and portfolio managers at hedge funds, although I'd prefer to see non-competes banned altogether (except perhaps for non-competes for owners selling a company... I think it's fair that if I buy your ice cream shop, we can agree that you can't open one up across the street the next day).

Post reply on HN