New York may ban noncompete employment agreements and Wall Street is not happy • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by nonethewiser » Sat, Nov 18, 2023, 3:05 PM UTC

malux85 wrote: post #159

donatj wrote: post #155

Sometimes I feel like corporations do things just because their lawyers are cargo culting and adding clauses because everyone else does rather than some logical reason. My sister worked at Subway and had to sign a noncompete that she wouldn’t work at another sandwich shop for three years. Are they really afraid she’s going to steal their secrets of placing meat on bread? The more cynical will certainly assume malice,…

Is there a version of Hanlons Razor but instead of incompetence, it’s money? I’m a firm believer in that. The clause was probably put in there so the lawyers could bill more hours. I can easily imagine a legal firm noticing a drop in billable hours so they start reaching out to existing clients, throwing in a bit of fear, saying everyone is putting non-competes in their agreements you should too. Boom, all clients ge…

> Is there a version of Hanlons Razor but instead of incompetence, it’s money?

For businesses, which aim to make money, isnt that simply competence? Or greed when taken to an extreme.

Basically “companies will act in their best interest.”

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

#162

Post by kuchenbecker » Sat, Nov 18, 2023, 3:05 PM UTC

malux85 wrote: post #159

donatj wrote: post #155

Sometimes I feel like corporations do things just because their lawyers are cargo culting and adding clauses because everyone else does rather than some logical reason. My sister worked at Subway and had to sign a noncompete that she wouldn’t work at another sandwich shop for three years. Are they really afraid she’s going to steal their secrets of placing meat on bread? The more cynical will certainly assume malice,…

Is there a version of Hanlons Razor but instead of incompetence, it’s money? I’m a firm believer in that. The clause was probably put in there so the lawyers could bill more hours. I can easily imagine a legal firm noticing a drop in billable hours so they start reaching out to existing clients, throwing in a bit of fear, saying everyone is putting non-competes in their agreements you should too. Boom, all clients ge…

Malux razor: Never attribute to incompetence that which can be explained by Money.

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

#163

Post by DangitBobby » Sat, Nov 18, 2023, 3:09 PM UTC

kuchenbecker wrote: post #162

malux85 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a version of Hanlons Razor but instead of incompetence, it’s money? I’m a firm believer in that. The clause was probably put in there so the lawyers could bill more hours. I can easily imagine a legal firm noticing a drop in billable hours so they start reaching out to existing clients, throwing in a bit of fear, saying everyone is putting non-competes in their agreements you should too. Boom, all clients ge…

Malux razor: Never attribute to incompetence that which can be explained by Money.

Fleecing people for money is malicious though

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

#164

Post by malux85 » Sat, Nov 18, 2023, 3:14 PM UTC

nonethewiser wrote: post #161

malux85 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a version of Hanlons Razor but instead of incompetence, it’s money? I’m a firm believer in that. The clause was probably put in there so the lawyers could bill more hours. I can easily imagine a legal firm noticing a drop in billable hours so they start reaching out to existing clients, throwing in a bit of fear, saying everyone is putting non-competes in their agreements you should too. Boom, all clients ge…

> Is there a version of Hanlons Razor but instead of incompetence, it’s money? For businesses, which aim to make money, isnt that simply competence? Or greed when taken to an extreme. Basically “companies will act in their best interest.”

No, that's too reductive - the behaviour is not solely explained by a unidimensional scalar like competence because there are actions that a greedy unethical competent company would take that another non-greedy ethical company would not take - so theres more dimensions than just competence.

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

#165

Post by xyzelement » Sat, Nov 18, 2023, 3:18 PM UTC

It shouldn’t be a black and white thing. Someone below mentioned a story of Subway (the sandwich chain) giving non competes. That seems wrong. On the flip side, a gender fund giving non competes to folks who see their strategies seems totally par for the course. Somehow the law should prevent one but not the other.

And I say that as someone who has a hedge fund non compete and was laid off and subject to that non compete for two years.

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

#166

Post by fleischhauf » Sat, Nov 18, 2023, 3:19 PM UTC

malux85 wrote: post #164

nonethewiser wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there a version of Hanlons Razor but instead of incompetence, it’s money? For businesses, which aim to make money, isnt that simply competence? Or greed when taken to an extreme. Basically “companies will act in their best interest.”

No, that's too reductive - the behaviour is not solely explained by a unidimensional scalar like competence because there are actions that a greedy unethical competent company would take that another non-greedy ethical company would not take - so theres more dimensions than just competence.

also, in case of the billable hours, the lawyers might do it due to monetary incentives, but subway might be malicious (or have other reasons to do it)

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

#167

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 18, 2023, 3:19 PM UTC

malux85 wrote: post #159

donatj wrote: post #155

Sometimes I feel like corporations do things just because their lawyers are cargo culting and adding clauses because everyone else does rather than some logical reason. My sister worked at Subway and had to sign a noncompete that she wouldn’t work at another sandwich shop for three years. Are they really afraid she’s going to steal their secrets of placing meat on bread? The more cynical will certainly assume malice,…

Is there a version of Hanlons Razor but instead of incompetence, it’s money? I’m a firm believer in that. The clause was probably put in there so the lawyers could bill more hours. I can easily imagine a legal firm noticing a drop in billable hours so they start reaching out to existing clients, throwing in a bit of fear, saying everyone is putting non-competes in their agreements you should too. Boom, all clients ge…

[deleted]

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

#168

Post by makapuf » Sat, Nov 18, 2023, 3:22 PM UTC

cj wrote: post #113

lordnacho wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an invented crime, meant to protect the incumbents. If I'm a waiter in a restaurant there should be nothing to stop me telling the customers that I'm going to a better restaurant and they should come and try it. Will the boss be annoyed? Yes. Should he be allowed to stop me? No. In the real world there is no salesman who thinks of the clients as belonging to the company. They all know that sales relationships…

FWIW, I agree with the scenarios and examples using workers making minimum wage. Waitresses, etc. On HN we’re talking about tech employees who make 5-10x the median US salary. We can have stricter rules and stricter contracts for the 5% top paid employees. Obviously a waitress shouldn’t be sued for talking about another restaurant with a customer.

We're talking about employees making 5x median salary vs companies making how many times median company profit ?

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

#169

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 18, 2023, 3:29 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #101

GuB-42 wrote: post #78

The article doesn't address what I think is the most important aspect of noncompete agreements: compensation. In France, and I believe in many other places as well, you can't have a noncompete without proper compensation. Compensation is relative to how it will affect the former employee career, it is usually less than a full wage, but it can be that if it makes finding a new job particularly difficult. There have be…

This is a problem in the tech industry but not on Wall Street. The norm there is paid time off between jobs (“gardening leave”). Everyone knows it is part of the system and that a mid level or senior hire can’t start right away. They also buy out still vesting bonuses and the like. It’s quite a civilized system and I think the law ought to leave it alone, while addressing abusive ones like we have in tech.

[deleted]

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

#170

Post by cj » Sat, Nov 18, 2023, 3:34 PM UTC

makapuf wrote: post #168

cj wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I agree with the scenarios and examples using workers making minimum wage. Waitresses, etc. On HN we’re talking about tech employees who make 5-10x the median US salary. We can have stricter rules and stricter contracts for the 5% top paid employees. Obviously a waitress shouldn’t be sued for talking about another restaurant with a customer.

We're talking about employees making 5x median salary vs companies making how many times median company profit ?

In an ideal world companies would share profits with employees.

In an ideal world, employees would also share in the losses when companies aren’t profitable (forgo a paycheck).

…everyone wants the first scenario, but absolutely not the 2nd! When will people realize that one of the value props of working for a company (as opposed to starting your own) is you’re guaranteed a stable income regardless of whether profits are going up or down.

(You can say it’s not guaranteed because you can be fired. Fair. But the point still stands, it’s nice to have a stable paycheck that doesn’t wildly fluctuate up and down)