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

121–130 of 138 posts

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

#121

Post by crdoconnor »

fooey wrote: post #19
sizzzzlerz wrote: post #12

I've worked in SV my entire career and had never even envisioned other states allowed no-compete contracts in this day and age. Everybody I know and have worked with has had multiple jobs and wouldn't have it any other way. Yet one more way CA is far in front of every other state in basic worker rights.

The company I used to work for bullied most of the employees into signing a 5 year non-competes. And that was after they'd already been in business for 5 years. My department collectively said no, but it was a huge showdown, and they immediately started trying to figure out how to make the company less reliant on us. Every other person in the company except for us signed it. The lawyer we consulted said it was the mo…

We really need a public database to track this behavior on a company by company basis.

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

#122

Post by crdoconnor »

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?

>Nobody would sell themselves into slavery if they had a choice.

It actually used to be common in the Roman empire. It was effectively how you declared bankruptcy.

This is something to bear in mind any time anybody advocates strengthening creditors' rights (e.g. removing bankruptcy protections or making them more onerous). The logical end point of this process is actual, literal slavery.

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

#123

Post by eru »

crdoconnor wrote: post #122
anon4 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

>Nobody would sell themselves into slavery if they had a choice. It actually used to be common in the Roman empire. It was effectively how you declared bankruptcy. This is something to bear in mind any time anybody advocates strengthening creditors' rights (e.g. removing bankruptcy protections or making them more onerous). The logical end point of this process is actual, literal slavery.

You don't need to go all the way to the end. And companies might be legal persons, but not physical persons.

Strengthening creditors rights against companies can be done without strengthening them against people.

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

#124

Post by Spooky23 »

marssaxman wrote: post #83
Spooky23 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a bigger company, most of the time, they tell you to go away.

In that case I most likely want to go away.

As well you should.

That's the evil of these sorts of unconscionable contracts. As a potential employee, it's easy to be in a predicament that would force you to suck it up and accept ridiculous terms of employment.

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

#125

Post by acjacobson »

sparky_ wrote: post #84
jedberg wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much. They are hoping you don't know the law. They are also hoping that by encumbering you with one that a future poacher would know that they might have to spend money on lawyers to fight for you in case you get sued, even though they know you will win.

Is this to imply that non-poaching agreements (e.g., "Great, you quit, don't talk to my employees") are equally void?

While IANAL, yes, non-solicitation clauses are also not enforceable in California.

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

#126

Post by x5n1 »

icebraining wrote: post #119
x5n1 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can not eliminate this source of coercion without for instance giving people free living wage. Eliminating such contracts would not eliminate the coercion but make it worse. Maybe not as bad a contract, because people can still walk away, but still could end badly.

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

#127

Post by anon4 »

trhway wrote: post #24

non-competes also decrease overall employee productivity and efficiency as it makes employees into drones just keeping their jobs.

In fact, if you've signed a non-compete and later wish to leave the company, it's in your interest to do your absolute best to make the company fail, so you can't be sued after exiting.

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

#128

Post by anon4 »

coldtea wrote: post #114
anon4 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 i…

The Soviet Union also really liked to re-define words like you're trying to do with "consensual" here.

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

#129

Post by icebraining »

x5n1 wrote: post #126
icebraining wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can not eliminate this source of coercion without for instance giving people free living wage. Eliminating such contracts would not eliminate the coercion but make it worse. Maybe not as bad a contract, because people can still walk away, but still could end badly.

Who would be coercing whom if work contracts were eliminated?

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

#130

Post by x5n1 »

icebraining wrote: post #129
x5n1 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can not eliminate this source of coercion without for instance giving people free living wage. Eliminating such contracts would not eliminate the coercion but make it worse. Maybe not as bad a contract, because people can still walk away, but still could end badly.

Who would be coercing whom if work contracts were eliminated?

The natural state of mammals on this planet is hunter gatherers. Hunter gatherers don't have any way of storing food, so they take only as much as they need. They are under constant coercion by their environment. So I guess the environment is coercing, whether that's nature or it's society. There is a way to get the basic resources for survival. For hunter gatherers they may go out at any time and if food is available they can hunt it. In society, there is no way to get that unless there is some form of contract or agreement for some resources in return for work.
Post reply on HN