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

81–90 of 99 posts

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

#81

Post by tptacek »

frankc wrote: post #76
tptacek wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's evasive. We have good reason to discount the idea that Jimmy Johns is seriously motivated by concerns about competing with sandwich chains started by their employees, and among them is the fact that they don't satisfy the requirements for enforcing those noncompetes, which their numerous attorneys have doubtlessly told them.

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

#82

Post by danielweber »

x0x0 wrote: post #71
ceejayoz wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It won't be "months or years." If you worked hours, the state will tell the company to pay you for that, now. Even if they are bankrupt.

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

#83

Post by danielweber »

frankc wrote: post #62
pyrocat wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It costs much less to start a small business" Ok, I'll bite. In what way does starting a small business "cost less"? Less than what? Have you ever tried to get a loan to start a retail restaurant? It's incredibly difficult to get the funding necessary, especially in an industry with such low margins.

The real threat is not that fast-food worked gets job at Jimmy Johns, decides sandwich business is great, decides to open competitor. The threat is potential competitor decides he want to open sandwich shop. Already has the capital in place, doesn't have the experience. Decided to get a job at Jimmy Johns to learn how they operate. I have no idea why people dismiss this like it's crazy. If you were already set on ope…

Why is this protected information? If me and three friends were going to start a burger shop, why is it even unethical for each of us to go work a few months at a burger shop and then start the new shop? This is hardly trade secret information.

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

#84

Post by danielweber »

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).

It's not that the old employer would sue you for damages, because they would have to demonstrate damages.

What they can do is get an injunction to stop you, and they could also send nastygrams to your new employer to get them to can you.

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

#85

Post by geebee »

johnward wrote: post #35
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.

This comes up every now and then. IANAL, but my understanding is that a California court may give effect to an order from a different state, so employers may try to get an order from out of state (a "race to the courthouse"). This is different from enforcing a non-compete from out of state, it's enforcing a ruling from a different jurisdiction.

http://lawzilla.com/content/noncompete.shtml

This was discussed here, with someone disagreeing with the above (like I said, IANAL, I really couldn't tell you):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7565896

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

#86

Post by couradical »

johnward wrote: post #47
[deleted] wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

I'm not in CA but there does appear to be cases where they can be enforced per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Exceptions_-... "Non-compete agreements are automatically void as a matter of law in California, except for a small set of specific situations expressly authorized by statute. They were outlawed by the original California Civil Code in 1872." "here are limited situations where a reasonable no…

Realistically, these are all the same thing in different manners - dissolving a business, and starting another immediately competing in the same space, which seems shockingly sensible to me.

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

#87

Post by x0x0 »

danielweber wrote: post #82
x0x0 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It won't be "months or years." If you worked hours, the state will tell the company to pay you for that, now . Even if they are bankrupt.

To introduce some actual evidence: No.

In California, there's a fairly straightforward process, assuming you go through the CA Labor Commission instead of a lawsuit. If the employer contests your claim in any way, it basically takes at bare minimum 6 weeks to complete, and often longer. A normal timeline, in a contested case, would be bare minimum 8 weeks until cash in hand. Longer timelines are typical. You may read a description here: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/howtofilewageclaim.htm

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

#88

Post by owenmarshall »

DanBC wrote: post #55
lotsofmangos wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The article has a pretty obvious slant in one direction." I noticed there's a signpost pointing down that way as well. There's some writing on it saying 'Sanity'. You may want to stroll that way a little.

42 minutes and your direct personal attack - which also contains stigmatising language about mental health - is not grey. :-/

I'll step up to defend lotsofmangos: that's a particularly uncharitable reading of the comment.

I took it to mean "your opinion is ludicrous; a person getting paid $8.50 an hour to flip burgers or assemble sandwiches lacks the access to capital required to start a restaurant". That's absolutely correct, and not at all a direct personal attack.

(though I'd agree that the choice of "sanity" is unfortunate)

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

#89

Post by owenmarshall »

jrokisky wrote: post #67
jessaustin wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm a clueless jackass, but I've made sandwiches before, and I've seen sandwiches made in sandwich shops before, and I can't imagine this "training" taking longer than a shift. The training that isn't directly related to sandwiches, e.g. how to stock the cooler and where the dumpster is located, is likely to vary from shop to shop. Most hiring shop managers are going to look more closely at how long one has hel…

I worked at a Jimmy Johns for a few months. They make the sandwiches in a very specific way to optimize for speed. The average time between order and handoff to a customer was about a minute during busy times.

Is that "very specific" method of assembly so complex or so secretive that it couldn't be deduced by anyone camped out at a table near the register?

Somehow I doubt it.

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

#90

Post by frankc »

tptacek wrote: post #81
frankc wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's evasive. We have good reason to discount the idea that Jimmy Johns is seriously motivated by concerns about competing with sandwich chains started by their employees, and among them is the fact that they don't satisfy the requirements for enforcing those noncompetes, which their numerous attorneys have doubtlessly told them.

They have then doubtlessly been told that they are unenforceable again Joe Employee who wants to work at Subway, but you seem to think that they still do it to trick people from leaving to work at subway. Why don't you think it's useful to discourage people potential competitors from infiltrating their company? I'd bet you it's way more likely to be enforceable in the latter case, against someone looking to copy your operations, if it's enforceable at all.
Post reply on HN