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

91–99 of 99 posts

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

#91

Post by frankc »

danielweber wrote: post #83
frankc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's probably not, unless you copy very specific things, which is possibly why they seek to discourage it contractually.

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

#92

Post by bsbechtel »

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.

You should familiarize yourself with the story of Homejoy. The founders did pretty much exactly what we are describing as a potential threat here in order to gain experience in the cleaning world.

The argument that asking employees to sign a non-compete is somehow unethical, yet getting a low-wage job to learn how to run a competing business is not unethical is moot and completely subjective.

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

#93

Post by danielweber »

x0x0 wrote: post #87
danielweber wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I missed the evidence.

California law provides for penalties payable to the employee, giving him his daily wage for each day the last payment is delayed. http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_waitingtimepenalty.htm It typically isn't worth trying to dick over your old employee.

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

#94

Post by aptwebapps »

frankc wrote: post #90
tptacek wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Because the bogus non-compete will fool Joe Employee but not Joe Next-Captain-of-Industry.

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

#95

Post by x0x0 »

danielweber wrote: post #93
x0x0 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I missed the evidence. California law provides for penalties payable to the employee, giving him his daily wage for each day the last payment is delayed. http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_waitingtimepenalty.htm It typically isn't worth trying to dick over your old employee.

experience and the timeline in the pdf I linked

You responded with the law, and a bunch of idiocy. Oh, it's against the law to dick over employees? Well then, it never happens -- case closed!

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

#96

Post by lotsofmangos »

owenmarshall wrote: post #88
DanBC wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Thank you for that. I have taken a bit of a step back to have a think if I am maybe a bit too combative in my language sometimes. Personally, as someone who actually has occasional mental health issues, I think it is fine to question someone's sanity if they come out with ridiculous ideas. If we are banned from saying that someone is being crazy, then that is not going to help anyone, least of all the insane.

edit - my other comment that did get greyed out, was admittedly far more of a personal attack, which was based on me asking myself who would suggest such a thing if they were not crazy, and I decided that the best candidate was the creatures from "They Live", hence the comment about the sunglasses. This was poorly judged, though I do not know if it became greyed out due to the insulting nature, or purely because it was one comedy sci-fi reference too many.

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

#97

Post by jackmaney »

bsbechtel wrote: post #59
pyrocat wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're very out of touch with the life of a minimum wage worker. I'm not sure what I can do to fix that, but maybe just step back and think about who you're defending and why.

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…

If one of your employees can quit and start a business that threatens yours, then why should you continue to remain in business?

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

#98

Post by jackmaney »

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…

I'm amused at all of these Free Market worshipers who always seem to be praying to the Invisible Hand...except when it comes to competition.

If JJ can't compete with businesses that their former employees start, then why should JJ continue to exist?

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

#99

Post by dllthomas »

moron4hire wrote: post #70
frankc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Who are these people who didn't already have this experience as teenagers? Who are these people who can't figure out basic, logical layout and workflow?

I think most people didn't have experience with any specific industry as teenagers, even if it may be the case that most people took some similar sort of job as teenagers.
Post reply on HN