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

281–290 of 407 posts

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

#281

Post by jjk166 »

tester756 wrote: post #264
bobthepanda wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

clearly there's value in the secret if you're making them sign a noncompete. The proposal is just to ask firms to put money where their mouths are.

He says that just because someone knows a secret, then it doesnt mean that he brings value/$$$ to the company They should pay him 500k just because he knows a secret? even if he's making just 50k to the company?

If someone else would pay them 500k to reveal the secret, then yes. Maybe don't give 500k secrets to people producing only 50k of value.

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

#282

Post by ewhanley »

tomp wrote: post #270
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…

Quant firms have already adapted years ago. Now they don't have 6-24m non-competes anymore, but 6-24m notice periods. You're paid full salary (incl bonus) but you don't work ("gardening leave") and obviously can't work for a competitor (because you can have a non-compete while you're employed).

This seems like the correct and fair implementation of non-competes broadly. If companies want leavers out of the market, they should be required to pay garden leave. People have to make a living, and it’s unreasonable to expect them to change geographies and/or professions to do so.

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

#283

Post by YetAnotherNick »

tomp wrote: post #270
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…

Quant firms have already adapted years ago. Now they don't have 6-24m non-competes anymore, but 6-24m notice periods. You're paid full salary (incl bonus) but you don't work ("gardening leave") and obviously can't work for a competitor (because you can have a non-compete while you're employed).

Few of my friends are in quant, but I have never heard anything like this. Can an employee just apply for notice period after a month of joining and be paid 6-24 month of salary?

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

#284

Post by YetAnotherNick »

mancerayder wrote: post #280
ghaff wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's the incentive to keep working under those conditions?

Other than getting paid without working for 6-24 months? Did I misread?

I think the GP meant why should you work when you can get paid without working.

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

#285

Post by rsanek »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #283
tomp wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quant firms have already adapted years ago. Now they don't have 6-24m non-competes anymore, but 6-24m notice periods. You're paid full salary (incl bonus) but you don't work ("gardening leave") and obviously can't work for a competitor (because you can have a non-compete while you're employed).

Few of my friends are in quant, but I have never heard anything like this. Can an employee just apply for notice period after a month of joining and be paid 6-24 month of salary?

The length of paid leave is at the discretion of the company, of course.

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

#287

Post by chiefalchemist »

js8 wrote: post #237
chiefalchemist wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps. But, for example, we didn't always have The Fed. We didn't always have WS. We didn't always have "too big to fail". We didn't always have taxpayer financed bailouts. We didn't always have a top heavy (Fed) government (that has more influence than it has common economic sense). At yet all those entities verbally champion "free markets" and "capitalism being a superior economic paradigm", Etc. Minds get lulled…

Sounds like you are, in "broad strokes", longing after 1870s or something. I think you forgot how crony (or crappy?) it was. What I am saying, if you really want this "traditional capitalism", which never really existed, you need some mechanism of how to avoid rich getting richer and becoming cronies (as they always did). I don't think you have an idea what such a mechanism should be.

To clarify, crony capitalism is when "regulation" and "oversight" are euphemisms for thumb-on-the-scale rules that result in a less than level playing field. The winners? The cronies.

And back to my previous point about The Fed, etc. We're told that those are "for the greater good" (words) but - and to your point - the rich are not only getting riche (actions),the rate of that wealth transfer (to the top) is accelerating.

We can call it whatever you want. And I'm not saying I want anything. I was simply pointing out that the majority of those - at the top of the financial food chain (e.g., WS) - who advocate for "free markets" are full of shit. They're lying. So maybe to make you happy we shoukd just say: Less Bullshit Capitalism? Will that satisify you??

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

#288

Post by YetAnotherNick »

rsanek wrote: post #285
YetAnotherNick wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Few of my friends are in quant, but I have never heard anything like this. Can an employee just apply for notice period after a month of joining and be paid 6-24 month of salary?

The length of paid leave is at the discretion of the company, of course.

But can the non compete be longer than paid leave?

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

#289

Post by anonymouskimmer »

caskstrength wrote: post #183
GuB-42 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think completely blanket banning noncompetes is a good idea either, there are some cases where they are justified. We just need rules to make sure that they serve their intending purpose (protecting company secrets) without negatively affecting employees. The rule of thumb should be that the majority of employees under noncompete should be happy about it (because of the advantageous compensation). It is only…

> We just need rules to make sure that they serve their intending purpose (protecting company secrets) without negatively affecting employees. Every time there is a discussion of non-competes on HN there is always a bunch of confused people who can't grasp the difference between NCA, NDA and NSA. You don't need NCA to "protect company secrets" or ensure that people don't just steal company's clients or something. Non…

NCAs best use is when buying out a business, where the prior owner agrees to not create a competing business in a defined area for a period of time. This is effectively economically neutral, and also serves a sense of justice.

This justification can be extended a bit to people in executive management roles at corporations, but for regular employees? You either got their salary value out of them when they worked for you or you overpaid them. I don't see additional societal value to a non-compete except in edge cases where an employee quits within a short period after hiring - staying just long enough to gain skills without generating a corresponding amount of value for the company.

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

#290

Post by ghaff »

tomp wrote: post #278
ghaff wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's the incentive to keep working under those conditions?

I guess bigger and better bonuses in the future? Like, why would you quite and semi-retire for 1-2 years when you can keep working for like 5 years and actually retire? (I'm just LARPing, I have been out of the industry for a few years by now...)

I guess it depends where you are in your career. If you're really aiming at a five year time horizon, then I can see it making sense to stick around. But, if you're yonger a year or two fully-paid vacation sounds pretty tempting.
Post reply on HN