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

New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 407 posts

Re: New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy

#91

Post by ffgjgf1 »

blueboo wrote: post #38
vgatherps wrote: post #26

Quant firms at least are one of the few places where noncompetes can make sense. It's an extremely IP sensitive industry with stupendously high pay where the employee is going to someone probably competing very directly with you, for the same/similar opportunities. Actual code + NDAs banning literal reimplementations of stuff aren't that valuable, the knowledge and ideas will stay in the head of the employees. The tw…

If it doesn’t make sense in California’s Silicon Valley, how can it be justified in NYC

> how can it be justified in NYC

Wouldn’t it make a whole lot more sense considering what kind of business they are in?

Re: New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy

#92

Post by lordnacho »

cj wrote: post #59
Paul-Craft wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should I believe you? You don't offer an argument. It is entirely plausible that one could be faced with a situation of losing one's home, health insurance, ability to exist in modern life, and, oh, one's actual life due to unemployment. I know this because it happens. Non-competes, by definition, make this problem worse by reducing the number of jobs available to a person. What's your justification?

I’m not going to debate or justify non-competes. I’m also not advocating for them. All I’m doing is calling you out that when you join a company, you’re voluntarily signing all of the contracts. It’s not some kind of involuntary act of slavery. A responsible adult is presented a contract and chooses to sign it. That’s the opposite of involuntary. Your argument is it’s involuntary. That’s what we were debating. I wasn…

I think the issue here is what voluntary means.

It's not black or white. You don't have to be held at gunpoint for something to be involuntary, and nobody is ever so free of concerns that everything they do is entirely voluntary.

Re: New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy

#93

Post by Libcat99 »

cj wrote: post #29
ajb wrote: post #9

After noncompetes, they should go after non-solicitation. Entire teams that work well together should be able to defect from shitty employers. It kind of happens anyway but on the quiet, inefficiently - I'd love to see a job website where you can list an entire team.

Non-solicits also include not soliciting customers. Which is particularly relevant at consultancies where the product is a service. If you join a consultancy group, and 2 months later quit with the client roster... is it really OK to poach all their clients to start your own consultancy? All of these contracts are time limited, FWIW. E.g. non-solicitation doesn't mean you can never work your your colleagues again. It…

If you can entice the customer base to leave so easily, it sounds to me like you're offering them a better product and should be allowed to.

Re: New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy

#94

Post by ThunderSizzle »

cj wrote: post #29
ajb wrote: post #9

After noncompetes, they should go after non-solicitation. Entire teams that work well together should be able to defect from shitty employers. It kind of happens anyway but on the quiet, inefficiently - I'd love to see a job website where you can list an entire team.

Non-solicits also include not soliciting customers. Which is particularly relevant at consultancies where the product is a service. If you join a consultancy group, and 2 months later quit with the client roster... is it really OK to poach all their clients to start your own consultancy? All of these contracts are time limited, FWIW. E.g. non-solicitation doesn't mean you can never work your your colleagues again. It…

> If you join a consultancy group, and 2 months later quit with the client roster... is it really OK to poach all their clients to start your own consultancy?

If those clients are willing to jump ship that fast, then yes. Realistically, that won't happen without a good justification.

Re: New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy

#95

Post by amelius »

dan-robertson wrote: post #52
bachmeier wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Quant firms at least are one of the few places where noncompetes can make sense. It's an extremely IP sensitive industry with stupendously high pay where the employee is going to someone probably competing very directly with you, for the same/similar opportunities. So the solution is that employees should only be able to work for one employer in their career? I wouldn't disagree with this argument if the noncompete…

It’s reasonably normal to be more like garden-leave where the employee is paid some high percentage of their base salary for some amount of time when they may not compete. This can still be very expensive for employees who will often have bonuses that are a large multiple of their base and so going down to base for the duration of the garden-leave. Some places won’t compensate for the noncompete at all, others won’t…

> It’s reasonably normal to be more like garden-leave where the employee is paid some high percentage of their base salary for some amount of time when they may not compete.

Some would use that money and time to start a competing company :)

Re: New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy

#96

Post by ffgjgf1 »

genocidicbunny wrote: post #54
mirzap wrote: post #44

Non-compete contracts should be banned unless the employee is compensated for the non-compete period. Period.

The employee should be over-compensated. If you were making $200k pre-tax at the job, the non-compete agreement should at a minimum require you to be paid $200k post-tax.

I’m sure there are some people who wouldn’t mind 6+ months on 80% (or so) of pay during which they are are free to do whatever else they want

Re: New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy

#97

Post by meindnoch »

cj wrote: post #57
izacus wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you join a consultancy group, and 2 months later quit with the client roster... is it really OK to poach all their clients to start your own consultancy? Yes. It's called free market competition and it's great for the society and economy. NYC bankers should be first in line to understand that.

What you’re advocating for is normalizing the stealing of company IP. The way you solicit clients from a prior company is downloading the client list, exporting to a personal drive, quitting, then using the list to poach. I’m fine if that’s your intention, but let your employer know upfront that you won’t protect confidential company data.

My email address is not your "IP".

Re: New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy

#98

Post by plagiarist »

Lev1a wrote: post #3

> Wall Street isn't happy that employees will have more freedom in their choice of employer "In other news, water continues to be wet."

Needs to be national policy. Non-competes compensated at full pay or they are illegal.

Let's get mandatory binding arbitration as well.

Re: New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy

#99

Post by cj »

jounker wrote: post #84
cj wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear what you’re saying, but it’s hyperbole. I think there’s zero percent of you starving over your unwillingness to sign a non-compete. Pretending like the situation is that extreme isn’t helping anyone.

In the USA fast food companies are requiring non competes for burger flippers.

I whole heartedly think that burger flippers should not have to sign a non-compete.

But HCE’s who deal with intellectual data (not burgers) all day long? Maybe, maybe not.

The point is it’s a choice to sign these contracts. Not every company makes you sign one. If it’s important to you, ask about it upfront in the interview process so it doesn’t turn into a “life or death” decision after you’ve accepted a verbal offer.

Re: New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy

#100

Post by mbesto »

cj wrote: post #29
ajb wrote: post #9

After noncompetes, they should go after non-solicitation. Entire teams that work well together should be able to defect from shitty employers. It kind of happens anyway but on the quiet, inefficiently - I'd love to see a job website where you can list an entire team.

Non-solicits also include not soliciting customers. Which is particularly relevant at consultancies where the product is a service. If you join a consultancy group, and 2 months later quit with the client roster... is it really OK to poach all their clients to start your own consultancy? All of these contracts are time limited, FWIW. E.g. non-solicitation doesn't mean you can never work your your colleagues again. It…

> If you join a consultancy group, and 2 months later quit with the client roster... is it really OK to poach all their clients to start your own consultancy?

I've been part of 5x consultancies in my career now, so this is a very heated debate.

- First, if you "steal" a client roster, then this is very clearly a trade secret and sits under different terms ("IP")

- Second, if I can do the same job (e.g. that don't require access to trade secrets) then why do I need the consultancy's benefit anyway? If the consultancy's brand/operations don't provide enough value to its clients already then maybe they (the consultancy) are doing something wrong. It's a consultancy's job to create value for its clients, consultants and it's partners, otherwise it's just a body shop.

- Third, "is it really OK?" by whose definition? Are you saying ethically?

> If they make the decision independently without being lobbied by a former employee, it's not in violation of non-solicit.

Why does it matter whether the employee is lobbied or not? The employee ultimately has free will.

If we believe that the free movement of jobs is a net benefit (both in terms of wage normalization and societal innovation) then aren't those things we would want as a society?

Post reply on HN