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

111–120 of 129 posts

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#111

Post by bsder »

mzi wrote: post #69
cortesoft wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those sorts of agreements are generally still allowed with these anti non-compete laws. If there is a specific non-compete contract that is signed, with money being paid for it directly, that is fine. That is a normal contract where both sides trade something of value. The types that are banned are ones that set the restriction as a part of a normal employment contract, where there is no specific compensation given f…

Yeah, those contracts are not valid here as the right to livelihood will trump that contract. So even if you sign that clause you are not bound by it.

> So even if you sign that clause you are not bound by it.

Jimmy John's was making its low-level employees sign non-competes, for example. This was ridiculous on its face, and probably wouldn't hold up in court. However, the people affected by it were least able to take it to court.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#112

Post by lokar »

throwaway85825 wrote: post #101
lokar wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was thinking of specialized welding, CNC operator, etc. Like, 12-18 months of hands-on training. I guess it could still be a scam, but I don't think transferability is an issue.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#113

Post by throwaway85825 »

lokar wrote: post #112
throwaway85825 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I was thinking of specialized welding, CNC operator, etc. Like, 12-18 months of hands-on training. I guess it could still be a scam, but I don't think transferability is an issue.

Some CNC machine manufacturers have on campus training workshops that would teach something transferable. If it's at a machine shop some will be and a lot won't be. Letting them sell it as training that needs to be paid back would be an absolute scam.

Some community colleges offer technical training, usually in partnership with a certificating body. But in this case the valuation is determined by a mostly independent body.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#114

Post by smnrchrds »

kccqzy wrote: post #13
smnrchrds wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not even get as far as an interview. More and more, I see job applications asking whether you are subject to non-competes, alongside asking about visa etc. I imagine answering yes will unceremoniously move your application to the reject pile.

It just means your start date is delayed. No different from interviewing a student whose graduation date is a year away or interviewing a foreigner who might require a few months of paperwork to get a work visa.

Most non-competes are at least 6 months but usually more than a year, and I have never worked in a company that was open to hiring someone with a start date that far in the future. Plus, the clock wouldn't even start running until they leave their job, so if you hire them for a start day in 12 months, they have to quit now and spend their savings. I have never met someone who was open to doing that. I am sure it could happen in very rare circumstances, but most jobs would be closed to most people with non-competes. I am glad that I live in a jurisdiction that doesn't allow them anymore.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#115

Post by bluGill »

throwaway85825 wrote: post #102
bluGill wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lawyers will take this for a share of winnings. The goal is to make it expensive for companies to say anything like that.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#116

Post by throwaway85825 »

bluGill wrote: post #115
throwaway85825 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lawyers will take this for a share of winnings. The goal is to make it expensive for companies to say anything like that.

Only for slam dunk cases where damages are statutory or assured.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#117

Post by nickff »

hx8 wrote: post #79
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…

I've had a buyout clause used while consulting before. The company was ending their relationship with the contracting company and wanted to keep a handful of individuals.

From what I understand, the contracting firms don't like (reasonably-priced) buyouts because it allows clients to cherry-pick the best 'talent', and basically use the contractor as a 'farm team'.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#118

Post by colechristensen »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #72
dylan604 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it would have been cheaper if they'd just let the employees do the thing as employees in the first place Keep in mind the company is probably not refusing to do things because of cost. Often it is because of risk. A lot of people running businesses have terrible judgement when it comes to risk

But also a lot of people go off and try to create competitive businesses and fail, a lot of people also try to completely rework the business they're in and also fail (it's a disease in early stage startups)

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#119

Post by catcowcostume »

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…

> I'm very firm that the consulting firm cannot restrict my employment opportunities.

Great point! NCA are essentially a limitation on your ability to work -- especially in niche industries or fields.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#120

Post by xboxnolifes »

tzs wrote: post #80
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…

> What's the actual steel man argument for why noncompetes are good? It probably depends on the kind of job. If say Walmart tried to use a noncompete to stop cashiers from going to Target there probably is no reasonable argument in favor of that. On the other when the employee is a top level executive who knows all the company's trade secrets and all their plans for the next year or so and they want to go to a direct…

> On the other when the employee is a top level executive who knows all the company's trade secrets and all their plans for the next year or so and they want to go to a direct competitor it is hard to see how they won't use that information at the competitor.

Since this is a steelman, what is the rationale for this dynamic needing to be protected? If this employee wants to go to a competitor because they they are getting a better employment deal, why not just try to keep them with your own better employment deal?

Why does it need some forced restriction? I know people aren't perfectly rational market participants, but what besides financial compensation or an enjoyable work environment would compel someone to go to a competitor?

Post reply on HN