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

131–138 of 138 posts

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

#131

Post by guelo »

icebraining wrote: post #118
guelo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sorry, I didn't meant to say that anarcho capitalism specifically has historically end up in a feudal state. What I meant is that a lot of historical societies, and modern ones for that matter, end up with strongmen oppressing the majority of people so it's something to be very wary about.

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

#132

Post by grahamburger »

eru wrote: post #109
grahamburger wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sure you're right, but I think it would also be difficult for them to enforce if they couldn't produce a signed contract. If I were planning on, say, using trade secrets from my current employer to start a direct competitor stealing their biggest customers, then yeah I'm sure it wouldn't hold up in court - but I'm not going to do that. It's more a way for me to be able to honestly tell my next employer - who might be in the same ballpark industry, but probably not a direct competitor of my current employer - 'no, I did not sign a non-compete contract with them.'

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

#133

Post by epistasis »

usrusr wrote: post #96
epistasis wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. "Freedom of contract" isn't some freedom that supersedes all other forms of freedom. In fact, freedom from economic coercion due to highly asymmetric power relationships rates quite a bit higher than some silly "freedom of contract" which is way the hell down the list after freedom of personal safety, etc.

An asymmetric power relationship that is easily illustrated by how rare no-replacement-hire agreements are.

That would be an interesting counter-offer when somebody proposes a non-compete...

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

#134

Post by fooey »

crdoconnor wrote: post #121
fooey wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A couple years later the FTC blew them up so it ended up being moot.

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

#135

Post by dredmorbius »

anonymousDan wrote: post #116
dredmorbius wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Transferring usufruct of your labour != transferring your life.

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

#136

Post by force_reboot »

Spooky23 wrote: post #63
force_reboot wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, these laws are more like anti-trust laws. Free market economics, according to its primary academic proponents (academic economists) is not the same as, nor is it even consistent with, the government enforcing arbitrary contracts.

I've observed that said economists don't fight to unchain their institutions for the overbearing tenure arrangements that restrict the free trade of professorships. After all, wouldn't the university operate more efficiently with underpaid adjuncts?

Tenure if a contract between the employee and the university. It says nothing about the university's or the employee's relation to a third party. You're just going for a cheap shot by bringing up an unrelated gripe.

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

#137

Post by dietrichepp »

wolframarnold wrote: post #94
dietrichepp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interesting. What's the rationale for this?

The doctrine of "consideration" means that both sides have to be getting something out of a contract, or else it is not a contract at all. Lots of people have argued for or against it, and the main rationale is probably just the fact that it is traditionally defined that way. This is why you often see people selling things for nominal values like $1 or whatever.

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

#138

Post by vasilipupkin »

Falkon1313 wrote: post #101
dietrichepp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

well, companies that have actual secrets to protect that are valuable do do that, for example, trading companies.
Post reply on HN