Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it? • Hacker News Board

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#101

Post by Falkon1313 » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 7:34 AM UTC

dietrichepp wrote: post #37

vasilipupkin wrote: post #34

My understanding is, non competes that do not pay you to stay out of the job market are unenforceable in many states, for example, in Illinois.

Since it's a contract, it's often unenforceable unless there is some kind of consideration. I believe in most states, if an employer asks you to sign a non-complete after you start work, it's unenforceable.

It's not a valid contract if they offer no consideration (they're demanding something of you but offering nothing in return). But they are a wealthy corporation with a powerful legal team and you are now unemployed, so they can count on you not being able to fight it. It's more like a threat than a contract - that they might be able to convince a court that it's a 'legal' agreement even if it's not a valid contract.

Noncompetes should be allowed only if the company offers to pay a minimum of market-rate salary for the duration (either what they were paying you or the best offer you've received, whichever is higher, to keep up with changes in market rates after you leave). That would then at least make it a valid contract.

But no company would want to do that, because then they'd have to pay everyone who quit or got fired for years afterward. And since the legal system is mostly controlled by corporations, that's unlikely.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#102

Post by mdpopescu » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 7:35 AM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #82

thaumasiotes wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also empirically true. It's very easy to observe votes moving politicians. Without some argument that this issue is governed by a particular special circumstance, your comment has no substance.

This is quite an interesting argument because except funding nothing prevents us from eliminating crime and poverty. The government is simply not interested in doing these things. They'd rather cater to the needs of their 'sponsors'. I think it's kind of funny that politicans are not interested in their own country.

Why? I'm not interested in my country either, I'm interested in my own household. Why would politicians be any different, given that it's not their country, they're just temporary CEOs? (We know how well the CEO situation works for large companies.)

An absolute monarch might be interested in his country, because it's actually his property.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#103

Post by dredmorbius » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 7:55 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #88

_delirium wrote: post #18

The headline kind of has the valence of government activity backwards, though I agree with its policy proposal. Other states don't restrict job-hopping, they just stand by and don't interfere as the free market ends up having the effect of restricting job-hopping. Employees end up signing restrictive employment contracts, and states don't prohibit them from doing so. California has made a conscious decision that the…

I'm a free market guy, and I also agree with certain notions of contract law - like you cannot sign away your inalienable rights. You have those rights regardless. Also, in order for a contract to be enforceable, there must be an exchange of value. I would agree with the validity of a non-compete clause if there was specific compensation tied to that. For example, "we'll give you $50,000 after you leave the company i…

Inalienable doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#104

Post by Pyxl101 » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 7:56 AM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #81

Pyxl101 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What connection does Cubic v Marty have to this? From Justicia: > In mid-May 1977, Marty came up with an idea for an electronic warfare simulator (EWS), a device for training pilots in electronic warfare. He developed a block diagram in May 1977 and in June 1977 a manuscript describing his invention. He showed both the diagram and manuscript to Minton Kronkhite of Cubic, representing it might be a new product which C…

"What connection does Cubic v Marty have to this?" It's the leading case and, as i said, quoted to this day in pretty much every other case. Please ignore the facts of this case, what matters here is the courts view on what it means to be related to the business, who bears the burden of proof, etc. "This is nothing like the scenarios we are talking about where an employee invents something on their own time with no c…

I'm not saying that I have a case showing that "what you do on your own time is yours". That won't be the case, especially if you've signed an agreement to the contrary as a salaried employee.

I am simply pointing out that Cubic v Marty does not in any way disprove that idea that "what you do on your own time is you own" either, because that's not what happened in that case. Instead, the employee had an idea directly relevant to their employer's business, showed it to them, got a raise, pursued it as an actual work project, and then after all that went off to patent it privately. That is not really a situation that has to do with someone inventing something on their own in their private time having nothing to do with work, where the question is whether the employer should own it.

The decision in Cubic v Marty should not be surprising or remarkable from what I have read. As an employee, you obviously cannot take home technology ideas that you were pursuing at work, as an official work project, and expect to patent them and get away with it. If you think there is something specifically interesting and relevant about it, then please point that out since I'm not sure what I'm missing. I am not saying that I have a more relevant case, just that I don't follow the relevance of that one.

If you are a salaried employee, and you use company resources on the project, or review it with other employees, or the project is in your employer's field of business, or if you pursue the project as an official work project, and it's in the line of work you do for your employer, and if you have signed an agreement agreeing to do so, and these are all signs that the employer owns the result. The case where none of those things are true is the case that I think will be interesting.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#105

Post by dredmorbius » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 7:59 AM UTC

intrasight wrote: post #65

What California used have was worse than non-competes. They had secret covenants between manor tech companies not to hire each others employees. I don't know if that has been completely eliminated. As for other states, you could ask why they have lots of stupid laws. As for California, you could ask why they have that stupid Proposition 13.

Those covenants, by Google, Apple, Intel, Cisco, and others, were manifestly illegal. The settlement terms were rejected by the court, as I understand.

I also must credit Facebook for breaking the deal -- one of the few times I can support the company's stance.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#106

Post by mattmanser » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 8:05 AM UTC

entee wrote: post #2

This is absolutely an underappreciated feature of SV, and prior to this article I had also heard it held up as one of the reasons SV has a relatively more active and larger startup environment than Boston. Given the nature of startups and the surprisingly high turnover I've seen of people coming and going at all sorts of companies, it seems impossible to me to create a vibrant, innovative economy with strong non-comp…

It's weird as well as in the early years of HN there were frequent questions about non-competes in contracts in ask HN (they might still, ask HN is less prominent now).

It just shows how much it affects our thinking both as entrepreneurs and employees.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#107

Post by eru » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 8:46 AM UTC

anon4 wrote: post #67

coldtea wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Alas, as nice as it is to cloth an issue we care about in the language of moral superiority, banning noncompete agreements does in fact impact the freedom of contract. (In the same way, but to a lesser extent, than the ban on being able to sell yourself into slavery.) Not allowing consensual slavery agreements, consensual beating people to death, etc, also limits "freedom of contract". That's because we value other…

"consensual slavery" is a tautology more ridiculous than anything the Soviet Union ever wrote in their propaganda. Nobody would sell themselves into slavery if they had a choice. Which kind of brings up an interesting angle - if every company is asking for an NCA, can't you argue that you signed it under duress, i.e. you didn't have a choice in the matter, and therefore that part of the contract is invalid?

Go start your own company?

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#108

Post by stuaxo » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 8:46 AM UTC

oautholaf wrote: post #29

_delirium wrote: post #18

The headline kind of has the valence of government activity backwards, though I agree with its policy proposal. Other states don't restrict job-hopping, they just stand by and don't interfere as the free market ends up having the effect of restricting job-hopping. Employees end up signing restrictive employment contracts, and states don't prohibit them from doing so. California has made a conscious decision that the…

I think your lense of "free market" needs to be supplemented with a little game theory here. If you're an employer, what's your disincentive for tucking in a little non-compete in your contract? None at all[1], especially since many of your prospective employees won't read it or potentially (if you're a low-wage employee) understand it's implications. Then what's the disincentive for an entire industry to do this? No…

Though of course a non compete is lessening the freeness of the market.

Of course the market runs because of rules we set in the first place.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#109

Post by eru » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 8:49 AM UTC

grahamburger wrote: post #30

stale2002 wrote: post #11

Here is the thing about non-competes. If you are smart about it, they can be basically impossible to enforce. If you've signed a non-compete and jump ship, you can simply NOT tell your old employer that you got a new job. What are they going to do? Sue you for working at a company they don't know about? There is nothing they can do if you are subtle.

At the last few places I've worked I've found that all I had to do was smile as they handed me the non-compete and tell them that I would take it home, read it and return it signed. Then I'd take it home and trash it. The next time someone asks about it (usually every few months) I say "I'm sorry, I think I lost it, could you email it to me again?" and start the process over. I honestly hate to be that passive aggres…

That might not hold up in court. By showing up to work (and getting paid in return), there's an implicit contract.

I don't know enough about law (and neither do I know your jurisdiction), to say whether that implicit contract would include the non-compete they obviously wanted you to sign.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#110

Post by _puk » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 8:52 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #90

ww520 wrote: post #10

CA Labor Code section 2870 (you don't give up IP rights to the work you did in your own time) is also vastly important.

Whenever I've gotten a job, I'd list on the employment contract all my outside projects and get buyoff from management that those were my projects, not the company's. Before I'd start a new outside project, I'd write it up and get management buyoff on it that it is not part of my job. The key is full disclosure, in advance. And I never had any trouble over it.

This seems to be good advice.

Additionally, I've found that at the point of employment projects don't need to be more than an idea; as long as you get them included with the contract, a simple abstract of what is covered is enough to give you something to play with whilst employed by said company.

Oh, and make sure to include projects even if you don't deem them to conflict with the company's area of core business. IME they'll be met with a chuckle and a 'not sure why these are here', but when the company is subsequently working out how to jump on the latest buzz bandwagon your side project may suddenly fall under some random wing of interest. Far easier to get it in there early.