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

When the Guy Making Your Sandwich Has a Noncompete Clause

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 99 posts

Re: When the Guy Making Your Sandwich Has a Noncompete Clause

#31

Post by eggoa »

notacoward wrote: post #28
nissimk wrote: post #19

Non compete clauses do not make sense for employees that are not highly compensated. They are a violation of the 13th amendment and frequently unenforceable. This doesn't stop people from trying to use them as a tool to increase employee retention especially in the face of poor work conditions and bad management. If an employer insists on one, you should ask for compensation. Make sure they agree to pay you some amou…

One of the problems with being poor is that you might not be able to afford lawyers to contest a suit over a non-compete. Therefore, we can't rely on post hoc legal remedies. Companies need to be proactively prevented, via regulation, from trying to pull this kind of stuff.

As VLM notes elswhere in this thread, being poor also means you're usually "judgment proof" (i.e. too poor to be worth suing).

Re: When the Guy Making Your Sandwich Has a Noncompete Clause

#32

Post by jakozaur »

Two models that make sense:

- California, non-competes are not enforceable

- Poland, you can make non-compete for the time you pay full salary (e.g. if company wants you to restrict employment for 3 months after leaving it, you will get your salary during that period)

Re: When the Guy Making Your Sandwich Has a Noncompete Clause

#33

Post by notacoward »

eggoa wrote: post #31
notacoward wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the problems with being poor is that you might not be able to afford lawyers to contest a suit over a non-compete. Therefore, we can't rely on post hoc legal remedies. Companies need to be proactively prevented, via regulation, from trying to pull this kind of stuff.

As VLM notes elswhere in this thread, being poor also means you're usually "judgment proof" (i.e. too poor to be worth suing).

The company might not recover costs by suing, but that won't necessarily stop them from doing it to make an example of someone.

Re: When the Guy Making Your Sandwich Has a Noncompete Clause

#34

Post by bsbechtel »

benjohnson wrote: post #22
tptacek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am confused by what appears to be an assertion that Jimmy John's has a legitimate concern that their minimum-wage-earning food service employees might leave to start a competing national sandwich chain.

Devil's Advocate: It's certain that Jimmy John's line-worker can't start a 2,000 store chain, but they could run off with some of the catering business.

Jimmy John's competes with every local restaurant in every local market where it operates. Someone can easily start a local business that cuts into the market share of one of its local stores, although yes, it's very unlikely that restaurant is going to overtake Jimmy John's nationally. And yes, many local businesses, especially restaurant businesses, are started by former employees who enter a field to get training, but one day want to open their own business. It's obvious many of the comments (and my downvotes) here are from individuals who have never ran, nor worked in, a business that operates and competes on a local scale.

Re: When the Guy Making Your Sandwich Has a Noncompete Clause

#35

Post by johnward »

jakozaur wrote: post #32

Two models that make sense: - California, non-competes are not enforceable - Poland, you can make non-compete for the time you pay full salary (e.g. if company wants you to restrict employment for 3 months after leaving it, you will get your salary during that period)

My understanding of the CA model was that they are unenforceable except for when an employee has a controlling interest in the company. For example you could enforce a non-compete on a co-owner who tried to create a competing service. At least that's the way I interpreted it.

Re: When the Guy Making Your Sandwich Has a Noncompete Clause

#36

Post by johnward »

nissimk wrote: post #19

Non compete clauses do not make sense for employees that are not highly compensated. They are a violation of the 13th amendment and frequently unenforceable. This doesn't stop people from trying to use them as a tool to increase employee retention especially in the face of poor work conditions and bad management. If an employer insists on one, you should ask for compensation. Make sure they agree to pay you some amou…

Now i'm curious if anyone has actually challenged this in court on the grounds that it's unconstitutional.

Re: When the Guy Making Your Sandwich Has a Noncompete Clause

#37

Post by jackmaney »

benjohnson wrote: post #22
tptacek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am confused by what appears to be an assertion that Jimmy John's has a legitimate concern that their minimum-wage-earning food service employees might leave to start a competing national sandwich chain.

Devil's Advocate: It's certain that Jimmy John's line-worker can't start a 2,000 store chain, but they could run off with some of the catering business.

If Jimmy John's can't compete with a fly-by-night catering business started by a former worker, then why shouldn't Jimmy John's fail?

Re: When the Guy Making Your Sandwich Has a Noncompete Clause

#38

Post by johnward »

aroch wrote: post #17
krigi wrote: post #3

I've been under non-competes before. I've just ignored them. Most of them are unenforceable and in cases like Jimmy John's are just another form of harassment.

Hell, many places will release you from a non-complete if it gets you to fuck off faster after being let go. Non-competes aren't really about punishing after you leave, they are there to "encourage" you to stay.

I'm not at a high enough level that I think an employer would actually try to enforce a non-compete but the fact that I signed something that says they could still scares me.

Re: When the Guy Making Your Sandwich Has a Noncompete Clause

#39

Post by DanBC »

eggoa wrote: post #31
notacoward wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the problems with being poor is that you might not be able to afford lawyers to contest a suit over a non-compete. Therefore, we can't rely on post hoc legal remedies. Companies need to be proactively prevented, via regulation, from trying to pull this kind of stuff.

As VLM notes elswhere in this thread, being poor also means you're usually "judgment proof" (i.e. too poor to be worth suing).

> there are other cases where low-paid or entry-level workers have had an employer try to restrict their employability elsewhere. The Times article tells of a camp counselor and a hair stylist who faced such restrictions.

Being poor does not seem to have helped those people.

Re: When the Guy Making Your Sandwich Has a Noncompete Clause

#40

Post by mratzloff »

drivingmenuts wrote: post #2

Their food is disappointing and now their business practices are, too? I'm really wishing the NYT had tried to get a comment from Jimmy John's corporate before publication. I'd love to hear their justification for that.

Here's all I really need to know about the company:

http://www.smilepolitely.com/splog/jimmy_john_is_a_big_man._...

I used to eat there pretty regularly until I saw those photos. I haven't ate there since.

Post reply on HN