When the Guy Making Your Sandwich Has a Noncompete Clause • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by x0x0 » Tue, Oct 14, 2014, 9:12 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #51

VLM wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The measures are very rarely enforced" Don't get into an agreement you're not willing to enforce... lets be realistic, the victims are judgment proof, if they lose, the company might be able to repo their hat or apron, that's about it. Most likely result is if you quit and tell your boss you're going to a competitor of any sort in the food service industry, you won't get your last pay check. It'll cost too much to g…

Attempting to withhold a paycheck for hours worked will get the Feds involved, for free, very quickly.

1 - not so quickly as all that;

2 - particularly if you don't know how to work the system, where to file a complaint, or how to get help;

3 - still a problem if you don't have the money to wait for that paycheck to show up for months or years

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

#72

Post by wmf » Tue, Oct 14, 2014, 9:13 PM UTC

I wonder if this is related to companies' refusal to hire full-time employees. If you only hire an employee for 20 hours per week, obviously they're going to need two other minimum-wage jobs... which may be at your competitors. I heard a story (which may or may not be true) about a guy who worked part time at Home Depot and part time Lowe's.

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

#73

Post by bsbechtel » Tue, Oct 14, 2014, 9:14 PM UTC

VLM wrote: post #61

bsbechtel wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you do for a living? I run a business that competes with fast food franchises for low wage labor. A great majority of our employees aren't poor, or struggling to get by, but college kids who are looking to make a little extra cash and get some work experience. A small handful are children of parents who have millions in the bank, and have no need to work other than it's something to do, and maybe to gain some…

That is an interesting anecdote about hiring trust fund babies on Manhattan Island or the equivalent on the west coast, but the fraction of the population operating under similar circumstances is extremely small and thus not very applicable to a nationwide discussion.

We're based in the Midwest. Believe it or not, there are rich people here too.

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

#74

Post by JamesBarney » Tue, Oct 14, 2014, 9:22 PM UTC

rbcgerard wrote: post #58

johnward wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yeah my understanding is that it is very state-to-state - I think in TX they are unenforceable unless they are part of the sale of a business in which you are an owner and hence receive compensation as part of the sale...

This is slowly changing as the courts are starting to enforce non compete clauses they wouldn't enforce 5 years ago.

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

#75

Post by bsbechtel » Tue, Oct 14, 2014, 9:23 PM UTC

pyrocat wrote: post #65

bsbechtel wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you do for a living? I run a business that competes with fast food franchises for low wage labor. A great majority of our employees aren't poor, or struggling to get by, but college kids who are looking to make a little extra cash and get some work experience. A small handful are children of parents who have millions in the bank, and have no need to work other than it's something to do, and maybe to gain some…

> However, generalizing the skill set and struggles of a few to an entire wage class of labor is absurd You mean like you did earlier in your post? I backed my claims up with data, you backed yours up with an anecdote about trust fund babies and college kids.

I acknowledged (in my earlier post) that a vast majority of minimum wage workers do struggle. I was pointing out that the risk lies in the outliers, not those who fall into the average. If there was a very real risk that every single one of our employees could start a competing business, then we wouldn't be in business. It just wouldn't be feasible.

I also never mentioned this practice was right or wrong, I just stated there is another side to this argument that the NYT is not sharing, and they did so in a biased way.

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

#76

Post by frankc » Tue, Oct 14, 2014, 9:27 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #63

frankc wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course the vast majority of them are no threat, but you should not assume every fast food employee is in it for the pay. If you are committed to opening a hamburger shop, you go and get a job at a hamburger shop for a few months to get some experience, see how they operate, maybe even pick up some ideas in terms of recipes, though usually its more learning the operations rather than stealing recipes. I know for a…

Once again: this isn't an argument. Taco truck owners could also rationally want to demand that their employees work for Taco Bux instead of dollars. But they can't, because neither the law nor human decency recognizes the validity of that exchange. And so too it is with noncompetes. The relationship a Jimmy Johns retail employee has with their company will inevitably fail to satisfy the requirements for an enforceab…

There are different issues being mixed up here: the fairness of the policy, the enforcibility of the policy and the motivation of the policy. I am only speaking to the motivation of the policy. Obviously we are just trying to read minds here since neither of us has any evidence of what went into their decision-making process. I am simply telling you from my first-hand knowledge in this industry, that 1) infiltration by potential competitors is common 2) it is a real concern 3) a non-compete provides some mitigation in terms discouraging the practice and providing a possible avenue of enforcement (though it might not actually be enforceable)

The blanket way OP has been dismissed really has to do with the rustled jimmies about the fairness of the policy and does not reflect well on the quality of the replies.

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

#77

Post by bsbechtel » Tue, Oct 14, 2014, 9:38 PM UTC

johnward wrote: post #44

bsbechtel wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I didn't up or downvote you but from my perspective I don't feel that employers deserve more protections. If I want to run off with the secret recipe it's already protected by IP laws. I think it should be illegal for an employer to limit your future employment in any way. I'm not saying the restaurant industry isn't competitive, it's probably one of the most competitive I can think of, but limiting employees rights…

At JJ, it was more about operational secrets that can't be protected by law. However, I mentioned in my original post that I don't necessarily think it's right or wrong, it's just why JJ does it.

I generally agree with you that limiting future employment is generally not a good thing, although I'm not convinced getting rid of non-competes in minimum wage jobs would materially affect wages. At most, it might prevent someone from taking a manager position at Subway, but I don't think it is going to raise the overall wages of restaurant workers.

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

#78

Post by vampirechicken » Tue, Oct 14, 2014, 9:50 PM UTC

wmf wrote: post #72

I wonder if this is related to companies' refusal to hire full-time employees. If you only hire an employee for 20 hours per week, obviously they're going to need two other minimum-wage jobs... which may be at your competitors. I heard a story (which may or may not be true) about a guy who worked part time at Home Depot and part time Lowe's.

Could also be used prevent your competition form poaching your workers for the buck an hour more that you're not willing to pay.

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

#79

Post by tptacek » Tue, Oct 14, 2014, 10:23 PM UTC

bsbechtel wrote: post #77

johnward wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't up or downvote you but from my perspective I don't feel that employers deserve more protections. If I want to run off with the secret recipe it's already protected by IP laws. I think it should be illegal for an employer to limit your future employment in any way. I'm not saying the restaurant industry isn't competitive, it's probably one of the most competitive I can think of, but limiting employees rights…

At JJ, it was more about operational secrets that can't be protected by law. However, I mentioned in my original post that I don't necessarily think it's right or wrong, it's just why JJ does it. I generally agree with you that limiting future employment is generally not a good thing, although I'm not convinced getting rid of non-competes in minimum wage jobs would materially affect wages. At most, it might prevent s…

Jimmy Johns is a franchise operation with tens of thousands of employees. Their retail workers do not have access to meaningful "operational secrets". It wouldn't matter if they did, either: trade secrets can be protected directly without noncompetes.

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

#80

Post by notacoward » Tue, Oct 14, 2014, 10:24 PM UTC

x0x0 wrote: post #69

VLM wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most employers don't waste time on references given the legal liabilities, references are only required as a tradition, to prove you know how to play the game, so I think they're safe... with the sole exception of the camp counselor. Given contact with kids, I'd like to at least imagine they would try to background check. Even then they probably don't and rely on 3rd party professionals. You have to be realistic abou…

Your response is amazing. Step 1 -- Let's ignore reality (low end jobs are not primarily teens anymore [1]); the actual quoted experience in the article Step 2 -- now firmly in our fantasy land, this nasty action of employers definitely isn't a problem! Step 3 -- therefore, nasty action isn't a problem! Step 4 -- The aristocrats. [1] http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/08/2433601/fast-foo...

Looks like a pretty accurate paraphrase, except that you left out the "well meaning advice" for people very unlike the GP to take risks the GP never would so that the system can right itself. That's a real gem of anti-empathy right there.