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

471–480 of 514 posts

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

#471

Post by iancmceachern »

lmm wrote: post #470
humanistbot wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The thing that makes me so angry is how lightly so many people treat these legally binding contracts. But most of them aren't legally binding. I've never understood why people care so much about these unenforceable non-competes. They want me to sign a contract that's inherently void? Sure, I'll do that all day (or if I'm feeling feisty I'll ask them for a small salary bump for the trouble - may as well take the fre…

Because they can kill people's careers.

I had a former employer sue a friend of mine, it wasn't legally enforceable but had to go for enough toncost enough in legal bills to make it so my friend lost his new, great, job that he had moved for. Just because it's not technically legally enforceable doesn't mean the company won't try to enforce it, and that trying has a real cost in terms of lawyers fees and also loss of employment.

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

#473

Post by skue »

lolinder wrote: post #310
mnehring wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, here are a couple of arguments for: 1. I have a relative who is an MD. He was recruited cross-country at great expense. (Average cost to recruit an MD can be about $250K). So, if his comp was $200K/year and it cost $250K to recruit, a neighboring practice could monitor for new incoming docs, and make an offer of $220K/year in salary to the newly hired doc. If that happened, it would be in the best interest of the…

1. If the doc is worth $220K, why couldn't the practice that hired him match the offer to save themselves the $250K they spent hiring him? This feels like exactly the kind of wage suppression that the FTC is arguing against. 2. Workers are not serfs to be bought and sold. If the acquiring company wants the talent, then they should structure the deal in a way that makes the talent want to stay, not use legal handcuffs…

You’re focusing on the specific numbers in the example, but missing the point. Imagine the salary difference is larger.

Basically, you have one company that has already paid $250K recruiting the doc and another company that paid close to $0. So if it comes to a bidding war over salary, the former company will always be at a financial disadvantage. And budgets always have limits.

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

#474

Post by Falkon1313 »

notch656c wrote: post #51
ecshafer wrote: post #21

Non-Competes being legal is only acceptable I think if the worker will continued being paid for the period of the non-compete. I can see reasons that non-competes exist, but those reasons don't really make sense in a world where patents and trademarks also exist. The fact that they are essentially illegal in California, and California's economy works shows that they are unnecessary and also don't hinder technological…

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.

May as well really be fair. If the employee isn't allowed to work in that industry for 2 years, neither is the company. They'll just have to find some other source of revenue and retool their business for a couple years.

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

#475

Post by lmm »

iancmceachern wrote: post #471
lmm wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing that makes me so angry is how lightly so many people treat these legally binding contracts. But most of them aren't legally binding. I've never understood why people care so much about these unenforceable non-competes. They want me to sign a contract that's inherently void? Sure, I'll do that all day (or if I'm feeling feisty I'll ask them for a small salary bump for the trouble - may as well take the fre…

Because they can kill people's careers. I had a former employer sue a friend of mine, it wasn't legally enforceable but had to go for enough toncost enough in legal bills to make it so my friend lost his new, great, job that he had moved for. Just because it's not technically legally enforceable doesn't mean the company won't try to enforce it, and that trying has a real cost in terms of lawyers fees and also loss of…

Does negotiating to not have a non-compete agreement really reduce your risk of getting legal hassle from a disgruntled ex-employer that much? The way I see it even if you don't have a non-compete it's not really any harder for them to call up your new employer and go after you with a meritless lawsuit.

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

#476

Post by naasking »

iancmceachern wrote: post #471
lmm wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing that makes me so angry is how lightly so many people treat these legally binding contracts. But most of them aren't legally binding. I've never understood why people care so much about these unenforceable non-competes. They want me to sign a contract that's inherently void? Sure, I'll do that all day (or if I'm feeling feisty I'll ask them for a small salary bump for the trouble - may as well take the fre…

Because they can kill people's careers. I had a former employer sue a friend of mine, it wasn't legally enforceable but had to go for enough toncost enough in legal bills to make it so my friend lost his new, great, job that he had moved for. Just because it's not technically legally enforceable doesn't mean the company won't try to enforce it, and that trying has a real cost in terms of lawyers fees and also loss of…

If a frivolous lawsuit caused loss of employment that seems grounds for damages, no? After all, there was clear financial harm.

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

#477

Post by andreareina »

Zigurd wrote: post #62
TSiege wrote: post #3

This is a bigger deal then the title suggests since it appears it would be retroactive and nullify existing non competes > The commission’s proposal appears to address this issue by requiring employers to withdraw existing noncompetes and to inform workers that they no longer apply. The proposal would also make it illegal for an employer to enter into a noncompete with a worker or to try to do so, or to suggest that…

It isn't too unusual for humans to be protected from entering into unjust contracts.

Are they? I imagine if there were real repercussions for contracts with unenforceable clauses we would see far fewer of them.

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

#478

Post by simongray »

heavyset_go wrote: post #464
humanistbot wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you think that's bad, I've been to multiple medical practices where part of the "standard legal stuff" they want you to sign would have you give them the right to sell your private information and info about your visit to their partners for the purposes of advertising, etc.

This is where you say the word GDPR (if you're in Europe). I've done it to some HR person and subsequently received a long email apology from the (very nervous) boss of the company the day after.

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

#479

Post by d110af5ccf »

vegetablepotpie wrote: post #466
humanistbot wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What makes me upset is when kiosks and websites ask you to agree to terms and conditions, and while you’re reading them, the interface times out. There’s zero intent from operators to allow their users to understand what they’re agreeing to. It’s all legalese written for their convenience.

I wonder if your example might actually be enough to render it unenforceable if you documented it.

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

#480

Post by iancmceachern »

naasking wrote: post #476
iancmceachern wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they can kill people's careers. I had a former employer sue a friend of mine, it wasn't legally enforceable but had to go for enough toncost enough in legal bills to make it so my friend lost his new, great, job that he had moved for. Just because it's not technically legally enforceable doesn't mean the company won't try to enforce it, and that trying has a real cost in terms of lawyers fees and also loss of…

If a frivolous lawsuit caused loss of employment that seems grounds for damages, no? After all, there was clear financial harm.

Yes, it is, but after lots of time and law fees. Most people just choose to cut bait and move on.
Post reply on HN