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

491–500 of 514 posts

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

#491

Post by PaulHoule »

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…

What's hilarious is that many industries run on "expert networks" of people who are full of knowledge they accumulated while under NDA.

The thing you have to realize about commercial contracts is that the law doesn't enforce itself, people who violate them usually don't get caught, etc.

Note also there are other inputs to NDAs. I worked for a firm that did a project for a big accounting firm that itself had confidentiality requirements to its customers so it is natural as an employee of the first firm I help the second firm keep its commitments.

I'd say there are two threads in NDAs: one of them is threats against those who violate confidentiality, another is a description of the procedures that are supposed to be used to protect confidential information. The last time I was doing a lot of consulting I had an NDA that had no threats but lots of guidelines.

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

#492

Post by ogre_battle »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #431
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Many NDAs and non-competes wouldn't either.

The point isn't to lock you down, it's to try to lock you down, and to come off as intimidating or onerous.

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

#493

Post by ogre_battle »

nlitened wrote: post #485
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…

I wonder whether signing with finger-drawn “I don’t agree” would be a solution that satisfies all sides?

"the note just says 'i do what i want'"

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

#494

Post by ogre_battle »

crazygringo wrote: post #338
ErikVandeWater wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highly motivated/skilled people will probably do valuable things with their time off that is not measured well by GDP.

Some will, for sure. But plenty of others will struggle severely or even enter into depression. Productive work is a major factor in psychological well-being. And a lot of people have spent their career being a highly specialized expert in one thing. Expecting them to abandon that for a year or more in order to instead contribute "entry-level skills" at something else can be difficult. It's already known how retireme…

I don't buy the "plenty of others" -- where are you pulling this? No offense but it sounds like projection.

2 years of non-compete aka 2 years of compensation to not work sounds WONDERFUL. Like, it means you're so good at your job we're willing to pay you to not do jack shit. You musta been working on something so cool that it's worthwhile to have you sit at home then let someone get even a whiff of it. It's the best possible compliment.

There are PLENTY of ways to do productive work -- take a class, work on a certification, work on a side gig, or take a job in a different industry for a spell. Volunteer at the YMCA and do an AWS cert while sleeping in until 10am every morning.

"entry level skills" is also simply untrue -- plenty of non-entry level stuff you can crank away at. Start a Master's degree, or shoot for the high end Cisco certs, etc. etc.

You can contribute to where where you're best at in a ton of different ways. You need to ditch this hustle culture mentality, there are plenty of ways to generate excellence and they don't require full-time, ass-kissing jobs.

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

#495

Post by ogre_battle »

asdff wrote: post #374
ErikVandeWater wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highly motivated/skilled people will probably do valuable things with their time off that is not measured well by GDP.

Sure, but your next employer isn't going to care that you took up fly fishing, they will just see a gap in your resume and ding you for that.

It's a single-sentence answer: "there was a compensated non-compete"

Have something to show for your time, like you took an online class or something, but it's not a huge surprise. You didn't pop on multiple DUIs and spend 2 years in the slammer.

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

#496

Post by humanistbot »

trentnix wrote: post #469
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…

100% It’s ridiculous how flippant and deceptive companies are about signing non-competes. Sometimes they neglect to mention it until you actually show up for work. So there you are, depending on this new job, standing in front of your new boss, compelled to create and maintain a positive relationship, presented with a legal contract that significantly damaged your leverage and alternate prospects. That might even be…

> That might even be criminal.

Careful with that word. Non-competes are non-enforceable in California and other jurisdictions. Some people say "non-competes are illegal in California", but it is not a crime to ask someone to sign a contract with a non-enforceable provision.

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

#497

Post by blueprint »

aliher1911 wrote: post #486
blueprint wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'm not confusing them. i know what i wrote. humans cannot avoid using IP from previous companies. what's your background ? (are you technical?) and there's more to this than existing big companies and their disposable funding.

I don't think my background is important here. But I'm technical if you need to know. I had first hand experience of colleagues specifically not working on certain parts of projects because of NDA from their previous employments.

Well, by doing so, they've already violated the NDA.

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

#498

Post by prirun »

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…

My ex business partner and I founded Ruby Lane (I'm out now) and hosted our servers at he.net in Fremont CA. eBay wanted to meet with us so we were going to stop by on a server maintenance trip. When we walked into the eBay building, they presented us with an NDA and said it was routine and we couldn't walk into the building until we signed it. I refused, because they never told us we would need to sign an NDA and they didn't send it to us ahead of time to review. I didn't even bother reading it, because no matter what it says, if they later wanted to cause trouble over that NDA, we didn't have the financial resources to fight them. Even though they invited us and I told them we don't want to discuss any of eBay's trade secrets, they refused to budge on the NDA. So we met with an eBay person on their outdoor patio for about 30 minutes and then left.

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

#499

Post by jpadkins »

donatj wrote: post #50
simplotek wrote: post #6

Noncompete clauses for workers is the most anti-american, anti-free-market policy anyone could pull. If workers aren't free to switch to better jobs and at the same time are left to fend off for themselves them the economic system starts to resemble feudalism.

> anti-free-market policy I go back and forth on that. It seems like the free market ideal would be to allow them and if people didn't like them they wouldn't sign them. No one telling anyone what to do. It certainly hasn't panned out that way though.

One confounding factor: In a true free market(tm), limited liability corporations wouldn't exist in their current form. So employers can be a lot larger, and gain more bargaining power over employees because of a government intervention that protects corporation owners from liability.

It's hard to be a true free market libertarian when the initial conditions aren't really that free...

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

#500

Post by heavyset_go »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #487
heavyset_go wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

those are larger groups likely owned by private equity investors True private practices are definitely not doing that. they dont even have the financial incentive to make an investment for the legal advice add that statement, to their financial disclosure

I've been to practices belonging to single doctors where I've been asked to sign such waivers.
Post reply on HN