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

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

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 138 posts

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

#111

Post by michaelt »

dredmorbius wrote: post #103
WalterBright wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

  inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered,
  or transferred  [1]
What the parent said sounds like pretty much the dictionary definition of inalienable to me?

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable

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

#112

Post by dredmorbius »

michaelt wrote: post #111
dredmorbius wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred [1] What the parent said sounds like pretty much the dictionary definition of inalienable to me? [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable

The original inalienable rights -- life, liberty, and happiness -- aren't inalienable because their transfer is prohibited by law, but because they're impossible by fact.

You can be denied of your life, your liberty, and/or your happiness. They cannot however be transferred to another person.

Your material possessions -- real estate, chattel property, intellectual property -- can be.

Again: the nature of inalienable rights is intrinsic, not protected by law.

You'll find that meaning supported in the definition you've provided.

(There's a whole 'nother discussion of rights-based arguments generally I won't get into, though I find the question somewhat problematic.)

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

#113

Post by Gibbon1 »

DannyBee wrote: post #73
turnip1979 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That section has a few exceptions to it. "... (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or ..." If you work for a large company in the valley, how does it affect you?I'm curious if anyone has first hand experience with it.

I can give you the cynical truth on it: Large employers will generally own whatever you do in your spare time. They will not mention this, and generally not care, but if you make a ton of money or do something really popular, they will start a fight. Note: "The employee bears the burden of establishing his invention comes within Labor Code section 2870. (Lab. Code, § 2872.) " See also cubic corp v. marty, which disas…

There are probably cases where the company does not sue though. I do remember a case where a long time employee of sears designed and patented a novel and useful ratchet wrench. Hazy memory but he tried to sell it to sears. Sears instead claimed they owned it, and the court said nope.

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

#114

Post by coldtea »

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?

>"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.

It might seem contradictory but the world is not always nice and tidy.

Consensual here just means "the other person agreed/signed to it".

But what forces pressured them to do so are seldom examined -- and lots of people assume as long as it's not a "gun to the head" it's OK.

Of course from:

a) "total freedom to evaluate and pick among many options -- or even ignore them completely" to

b) "tons of factors pressuring enormously for a quick decision, and very limited options"

there's a huge scale of "consent" before we get to "gun to the head" non-consent -- but it's seldom acknowledged. In other words, consent is seldom black and white.

If we want to make the term less ridiculous, consent should only be used when there's actual and considerable choice on the matter. Not when it's "that or immediate hunger/homelessness/etc."

Of course long term everybody could be homeless/hungry without a job, but there's a difference between a person choosing to work for company X after evaluating what they do, the salary, etc, and a person in some Asian town that has to go work to the nearby factory or else, or a non-college educated single mom in Alabama a week away from eviction, that latch-on to whatever they can get to survive.

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

#115

Post by michaelt »

simula67 wrote: post #70

> He was thrilled when he got an offer for an $18-per-hour cleaning job in the Seattle area — a big step up from the $15-per-hour job he had taken a few months earlier > After Almeida switched jobs, a lawyer from his old employer, ServiceMaster, sent him a letter threatening a lawsuit > The company told the Seattle Times that the noncompete agreement was necessary because ServiceMaster had provided Almeida with valua…

Wouldn't that invite companies to claim internal training is very expensive?

Get the employee to shadow another employee for two weeks, then claim they were trained for ten days at $1000/day.

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

#116

Post by anonymousDan »

dredmorbius wrote: post #112
michaelt wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred [1] What the parent said sounds like pretty much the dictionary definition of inalienable to me? [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable

The original inalienable rights -- life, liberty, and happiness -- aren't inalienable because their transfer is prohibited by law , but because they're impossible by fact . You can be denied of your life, your liberty, and/or your happiness. They cannot however be transferred to another person. Your material possessions -- real estate, chattel property, intellectual property -- can be. Again: the nature of inalienabl…

Sure you can. There are plenty of examples in history of people voluntarily becoming a slave to other people because they have fallen into debt.

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

#117

Post by [deleted] »

dredmorbius wrote: post #112
michaelt wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred [1] What the parent said sounds like pretty much the dictionary definition of inalienable to me? [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable

The original inalienable rights -- life, liberty, and happiness -- aren't inalienable because their transfer is prohibited by law , but because they're impossible by fact . You can be denied of your life, your liberty, and/or your happiness. They cannot however be transferred to another person. Your material possessions -- real estate, chattel property, intellectual property -- can be. Again: the nature of inalienabl…

[deleted]

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

#118

Post by icebraining »

guelo wrote: post #69
x5n1 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fine if corporations can form syndicates to black list workers, workers can form unions to strike, take over factories, etc. If corporations can then buy its own mercenaries so can workers form their own militias to take on rent a cops. And so on. This stupid fantasy of corporate tyrants free to do as they wish ends the same way all tyrannies do, with a revolution.

I guess so, though there are a lot of examples in history where you ended up with stable feudal-like states. The idea that anarcho-capitalism would produce an optimal equilibrium seems ahistorical to me. I don't think humans have figured out an ideal system of governance, but a strong central government constrained by the rule of law and some democratic checks and balances seems to be the best we've got.

Which examples are you thinking of where a anarcho-capitalist society ended up as a stable feudal-like state?

I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, I just don't remember such an ancap society existing in the first place.

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

#119

Post by icebraining »

x5n1 wrote: post #59
oconnor663 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consent on both sides is an important difference. It's not everything, but maybe important enough that it's misleading to talk around it.

Consent under coercion which most work contracts are implicitly, else how are you going to pay for your living expenses, by necessity require government intervention.

Under that point of view, seems like the government should instead prohibit work contracts themselves, therefore eliminating such coercion.

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

#120

Post by icebraining »

michaelt wrote: post #115
simula67 wrote: post #70

> He was thrilled when he got an offer for an $18-per-hour cleaning job in the Seattle area — a big step up from the $15-per-hour job he had taken a few months earlier > After Almeida switched jobs, a lawyer from his old employer, ServiceMaster, sent him a letter threatening a lawsuit > The company told the Seattle Times that the noncompete agreement was necessary because ServiceMaster had provided Almeida with valua…

Wouldn't that invite companies to claim internal training is very expensive? Get the employee to shadow another employee for two weeks, then claim they were trained for ten days at $1000/day.

Not if they had to justify the cost, i.e., provide evidence that they actually spent $1000/day (even if in opportunity costs).
Post reply on HN