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

Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 218 posts

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#11

Post by PhoenixReborn »

harry8 wrote: post #8
twblalock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cue the apologists working for the big silicon valley players... Why? Silicon Valley is in California where noncompetes are illegal. Silicon Valley companies don't use them. I've been in Silicon Valley my entire career and I have never seen one or heard of anyone who has.

I don't follow, which part did you fail to understand?

I've never been asked to sign a noncompete when working in California for any company, including Google. I have not worked at the others so I can't say what their practices are, but most CA-based companies will never even try to get you to sign a non-compete agreement because they know it cannot be enforced.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#12

Post by twblalock »

harry8 wrote: post #8
twblalock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cue the apologists working for the big silicon valley players... Why? Silicon Valley is in California where noncompetes are illegal. Silicon Valley companies don't use them. I've been in Silicon Valley my entire career and I have never seen one or heard of anyone who has.

I don't follow, which part did you fail to understand?

The Silicon Valley companies you railed against for abusing noncompete agreements don't actually use noncompete agreements.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#13

Post by twblalock »

thatoneuser wrote: post #4

Imho the only reason non competes should be permitted is if you’ve paid someone to acquire proprietary knowledge and that realistically the company's activities are the only reason that knowledge exists. It completely flies in the face of freedom of the worker to say you can’t jump ship to a competitor, unless you’re just doing it for trade secrets. It’s anti-employee to say “hey, after us you don’t get to go use the…

I would argue that proprietary knowledge is already covered by trade secret law and patent law, and there is still no justification for a noncompete agreement in such a case. Let the employee go, and if you find out he/she has used that secret knowledge at another company then you sue.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#14

Post by 77pt77 »

twblalock wrote: post #3

Banning noncompete agreements is something California has been doing right since 1872 when they were first banned. Another thing California does right is refusing to honor noncompete agreements from other states.

> since 1872

I knew California had banned them but I though it had happened a few decades ago at most.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#15

Post by trhway »

harry8 wrote: post #6

noncompetes work even when illegal and unenforceable. Why, because you or many of your potential employers don't want the massive cost and emotional toll of being sued - even if you win you lose. That's all google, facebook, microsoft, etc. you know the companies that we KNOW are guilty of operating a cartel to drive down wages. That's all they need. This baseless illegal, legally unenforcable contract provision mean…

>That's all google, facebook, microsoft, etc. you know the companies that we KNOW are guilty of operating a cartel to drive down wages

The cartel was broken around 2010 and that (together with options expensing) have led to the compensations growth from $150K back then to $400K+ today. If anything the FB, Google, etc are driving everybody's wages up today.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#16

Post by twblalock »

77pt77 wrote: post #14
twblalock wrote: post #3

Banning noncompete agreements is something California has been doing right since 1872 when they were first banned. Another thing California does right is refusing to honor noncompete agreements from other states.

> since 1872 I knew California had banned them but I though it had happened a few decades ago at most.

I can't find any historical reason noncompetes were banned. I assume it happened because California was a new state and people coming there to work did not want to get stuck with the first employer they happened to end up with. There also would not have been a heavily established business lobby with enough power to prevent a ban, as there was on the east coast. California was writing a new legal code, so there was not an established precedent of noncompete agreements in state law.

If noncompetes hadn't been banned when California was such a young state, they probably never would have been. It was a time when a lot of things lined up to make it possible.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#17

Post by [deleted] »

harry8 wrote: post #8
twblalock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cue the apologists working for the big silicon valley players... Why? Silicon Valley is in California where noncompetes are illegal. Silicon Valley companies don't use them. I've been in Silicon Valley my entire career and I have never seen one or heard of anyone who has.

I don't follow, which part did you fail to understand?

[deleted]

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#18

Post by throwawaymath »

harry8 wrote: post #8
twblalock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cue the apologists working for the big silicon valley players... Why? Silicon Valley is in California where noncompetes are illegal. Silicon Valley companies don't use them. I've been in Silicon Valley my entire career and I have never seen one or heard of anyone who has.

I don't follow, which part did you fail to understand?

As an aside, this is one of the least charitable ways you could have responded to that comment. It's probably why you're getting downvoted. This is why what you wrote is dismissive:

1. They quoted the portion of your comment relevant to their response,

2. They explained in a straightforward and neutral way why what you said in the quoted portion doesn't really make sense,

3. You responded without any specifics about what you're not following,

4. You assumed they simply failed to understand you.

Now, I think the part you didn't follow is this: you tried to preempt noncompete "apologists" working at large tech companies in California. However as a rule, such companies generally do not (and cannot) rely on noncompetes, which means what you're saying isn't applicable. Further, the merits of your original point notwithstanding, it's also kind of dismissive to call those on the other side of the argument "apologists" in the way you did.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#19

Post by everdev »

twblalock wrote: post #3

Banning noncompete agreements is something California has been doing right since 1872 when they were first banned. Another thing California does right is refusing to honor noncompete agreements from other states.

You can still enter into a legally binding non-compete in California resulting from the acquisition of a company or IP.
Post reply on HN