Live data from Hacker News

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

fortune.com

221–230 of 407 posts

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

#221

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…

> 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. Cry me a river. If knowledge of some particular employees worth so much to the quant firms, then they should pay them not to leave accordingly.

…sorry, how much exactly do you think quants make?

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

#222
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Lawyers will advise you not to do this. It exposes you to accusations of IP theft and barred competition.

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

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Garden leave means you get your low base salary but not any bonus, which is the bulk of a finance income.

Do finance firms pay the awarded bonus in full or vest it over time like most other business? If latter, I imagine you'd get your previously awarded bonus, you'd just stop accumulating bonuses to be paid in the future, which makes sense since you are going to be working elsewhere at that time and the new place's sign up should make up for the bonus payment ramp up.

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

#224
post #206
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking only about soliciting co-workers. It should be within the ability of legislators to ban only that - they are clearly distinguishable, as they have different contractual relationships. I don't really have an opinion about soliciting clients. It's true that multiple people can quit at the same time, but non-solicitation clauses significantly impedes the process otherwise companies wouldn't bother to write t…

Non-solicitation clauses are typically mostly about client lists. Companies may get a bit grumpy if a bunch of employees leave to go work for a former manager elsewhere but AFAIK there's not much they can do about it. Who is to know who even initiated the reaching out assuming a bare minimum level of discretion?

When you reduce the cost of something by a large factor, it is often gamechanging. I think that being able to move a whole team openly could reduce the cost to the new employer by a factor of three or more, which would be a significant change in the employment market, and change employer behavior.

Here is how I see it working out:

Lets say that Foosoft is a rapidly expanding unicorn, and Microgle is a cash cow which is going nowhere, and the employees are being squeezed by bad managers brought in by private equity. Foosoft is wants to expand rapidly to take advantage of their huge opportunity, so the are setting up entire new teams. Right now, they have to do so at a cost of X per employee, so ~6X per team, which includes the cost of recruiter fees, time of interviewers, team-setup time, and the initial inefficiency as the team learns to work together. X is going to be a substantial fraction of 1 year salary. The cost is going to be pretty similar if a team migrates using the whisper route, as they won't all migrate across, the interview process is the same, there will be some new members, etc. X might be a bit smaller as you will have probably have fewer interviews as you found it easier to source candidates once your first hire made it in. But the your first hire might not have been from the team wanting to move.

Now instead suppose that the team from Microgle listed themselves on PoachMyTeam.com. Foosoft only has to check that the team is a good fit (it's a backend team, say, with capabilities they want). Then they interview the team lead and do group interviews of the team as a whole. Probably your interview process is 2X rather than 6X - you don't need to repeat everything for each candidate, because they already trust each other. Fundamentally, you don't need to check the capabilities of each employee individually, just the capabilities of the team. Also, X will be smaller because there will be less team setup, etc. So, a cost reduction of more than 3, at a guess. That degree of change is likely to change the employment market as a whole, at least in those areas where teams moving is likely to be practical.

But today, Microgle would sue PoachMyTeam.com for tortious interference. So PoachMyTeam.com cannot exist under current law. This is an economic friction caused by (private) regulation of the market.

As regards non-solicitation being mostly about clients, my most recent employment contract had a separate clause against employee solicitation as well as client solicitation.

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

#225

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…

> 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. Cry me a river. If knowledge of some particular employees worth so much to the quant firms, then they should pay them not to leave accordingly.

Knowledge of a secret does not imply that you provide value.

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

#226
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect judges in most states would invalidate a noncompete for a sandwich shop worker. Unless you have the monetary means to bring the issue to court (and see it through to the end), any clause like this will effectively be a law.

That’s not the case, very few civil legal disputes go to court, particularly if they are BS. For a total BS claim, it usually doesn’t take more than calling their bluff. Or just ignoring it. Employers usually just bet on people just following the language and not challenging it because they think it’s valid and they think they’ll have to go to court. In reality, a business doesn’t want to spend tens of thousands of d…

Employers taking a random ex-employee and throwing them against a wall has a nice deterrence effect on the rest of their employees. They don't have to win, they just have to be unpleasant. Happens all the time.

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

#227
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect judges in most states would invalidate a noncompete for a sandwich shop worker. Unless you have the monetary means to bring the issue to court (and see it through to the end), any clause like this will effectively be a law.

That’s not the case, very few civil legal disputes go to court, particularly if they are BS. For a total BS claim, it usually doesn’t take more than calling their bluff. Or just ignoring it. Employers usually just bet on people just following the language and not challenging it because they think it’s valid and they think they’ll have to go to court. In reality, a business doesn’t want to spend tens of thousands of d…

First, you're lucky to get $10/hr, no benefits. Of course, 29.5h a week, but required to have 60h schedule open.

And food service is horrifically abusive.

And yes, the noncompetes ARE enforced, because it's not about you - it's about keeping all the employees/slaves in line, and knowing there is no other place they can turn to working.

This whole thread is so laughable. As a former Subway employee, I worked there cause there was nowhere else. Pay was a laugh. And if you think there's legal services for the poverty masses, then you must be smoking something REALLY good.

EDIT: oh look, the -1 brigade of people who had silver spoons since birth. Just how many of you climbed from homelessness and menial jobs??

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

#228
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it make sense. Pay employees for their work and they’ll stick around.

To your point, it's ironic that firms who push a free market ethos don't actually want to compete. Instead, they want a thumb on the scale that tilts the advantages in their direction. Welcome to Crony Capitalism (which should not be confused with traditional capitalism).

Offering a contract with whatever stipulations to a potential counterparty that he can sign or not sign on his own accord is competing. Forbidding your counterparty from putting certain stipulations in their contract by using government intervention is not.

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

#229

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…

> 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. Cry me a river. If knowledge of some particular employees worth so much to the quant firms, then they should pay them not to leave accordingly.

You can work at 2 companies without leaving either.

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

#230
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what benefit does the economy and society get by allowing monopolization of these strategies by a single company at the expense of basic right for workers to switch jobs to the ones that pay them the most? It sounds so profoundly anti-capitalist - if the knowledge of certain strategy is so important, the employee should be retained by paying them more and giving them better perks instead of enforced labor contrac…

This is exactly the right question. If quant firms make the world a better place by tightening spreads - a common justification - then wouldn't we get an even better place if everyone knew about these strategies?

If you can’t protect your IP, you don’t have a reason to develop it in the first place.
Post reply on HN