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

New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 129 posts

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#101

Post by throwaway85825 »

lokar wrote: post #89
remarkEon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the actual steel man argument for why noncompetes are good? I've never really encountered one, just seen the corporate advocacy that they don't want to deal with high employee turnover. Best I can do: Non-competes are (possibly) unenforceable anyway, so signing one maybe acts as a value signal for the employee? "I'd have to violate my non-compete, so in order to do that and permanently burn the bridge with my…

In theory, something like a technical job that requires extensive training. I always see reports about a lack of training for high tech trade / manufacturing jobs, as they require up to 2 years of training, but training slots are limited. You might get companies to pay the training if they could be assured the person would not run to a competitor. But even that should be agreed up front, with a limited term (eg we wi…

A lot of training isn't accredited or transferrable and just a scam.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#102

Post by throwaway85825 »

bluGill wrote: post #19
x0x0 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lost a job because of one. In nyc. Company made some threats and the offer was pulled.

You can sue the old company for that. You had a job that they are not allowing you to do. Courts don't like it when someone isn't allowed to support themselves, and so generally place narrow limits on what a non-compete tan cover. You should sue for the sake of the rest of us who might be next when this tactic is found to work.

Lawsuits take years and are very expensive in time and money. Years of litigation cost Epic billions in legal fees and lost revenue. It's much much worse if you don't start with millions.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#103

Post by throwaway85825 »

datadrivenangel wrote: post #29
observationist wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies need to put more care into who they trust, and maybe incentivize skin in the game. If leaving for a competitor means you lose equity, agency, ownership, or some intangible, that can outweigh bigger paychecks. The market should be able to solve this problem without the government setting arbitrary rules, and people should be allowed to sign contracts that limit or restrict their freedom, so long as it involv…

The solution here in finance is garden leave, where people are contractually barred from competing with their former employer during a period for which they are compensated as if they were fully employed!

A lot of politics is people pretending the solution space hasn't already been explored.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#104

Post by colechristensen »

richwater wrote: post #96
colechristensen wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the years go buy I'm gradually more and more in favor of restrictions to sell businesses. They tend to benefit two groups: the people running a successful business and the people running the even more successful businesses buying them. They tend not to benefit the employees, the customers, the competitors and really anyone else besides a small number of people who are already very successful.

This is quite a stupid idea: you kill all innovative behavior if a creator can't decide to sell his creation.

Creators more invested in running their creation than selling it might do a better job.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#105

Post by jmward01 »

I was just forced to sign one of these after already being employed. I, very clearly, pointed out that I didn't actually agree but that I needed a job. Often people don't see these things until it is too late to back out like at on-boarding or even later, as in my case. It is bad enough to have non-compete clauses, they are evil and should be banned, but then to sneak/force them after as if your employment is a TOS that can be changed at any time is beyond wrong.

If you really are a good place to work people will stay. If you really are paying enough for the value you provide, people will stay. If you aren't then people will leave, for the competition likely since that is the industry they know. Non-compete is really just a power play that enables companies to pay employees less and it is an abuse of power.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#106

Post by hn_acc1 »

Beestie wrote: post #54
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #14

The only time I see non-competes as reasonable is when someone sells a business. It seems fair to put a territory restriction on a seller so the new owner doesn't have to immediately start competing against the person they bought out.

Non-competes are restrictions on employees by their current employer. A non-compete agreement between a seller and buyer is perfectly fine.

Technically, restrictions on employees by their FORMER employer. In theory (if valid), they could retain power over you for a time AFTER you are no longer employed.

A similar thing is often done during dismissal: sign away your rights to sue for wrongful dismissal in return for severance. In my case, almost a year's worth of pay seemed like a reasonable severance, so I took it and didn't argue.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#107

Post by ConradKilroy »

Beestie wrote: post #58

A clause I frequently see (as one who performs a lot of contract work) is a restriction on accepting an offer of employment from the client of the consulting firm I'm contracting with. Whenever I see this clause, I redline it out and advise the consulting firm to fashion a buyout clause* with the client. I'm very firm that the consulting firm cannot restrict my employment opportunities. * The buyout clause is between…

wow, I've learned so much from your post, owe you big time!

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#108

Post by toomuchtodo »

Twirrim wrote: post #97
gautamcgoel wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, I'm confused. Do you mean Boston should have made non-compete agreements illegal?

Massachusetts used to be one of the most favourable states for non-compete agreements, with strong legal protection and support, favouring companies. Not sure if that has changed since the last time I looked (been a few years).

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-no...

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#109

Post by genthree »

bs7280 wrote: post #37
josephg wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? They started one successful business. It seems good for society if they go on to start another.

Why would I buy a business if the person im buying it from is just going to create a new one to compete with me?

To have own the business?

Purchases that wouldn't go through if they didn't reduce competition shouldn't happen anyway. Banning those kinds of restrictions would help with that.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#110

Post by gridder »

dylan604 wrote: post #59
colechristensen wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Besides, competing would have meant doing exactly the same thing over again. What's the fun in that? All of the baggage and tech debt gone! THIS TIME WE'LL DO IT RIGHT

It is not unheard of that employees leave a company to start their own precisely because the company is not addressing something specific leaving a gap in services. The startup begins to gain traction to the point the company the employees left buys the startup. It's like this is the only way for the company to "do it right", yet it would have been cheaper if they'd just let the employees do the thing as employees in…

Apple -> NeXT
Post reply on HN