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

Noncompete Clauses: Signing Away the Right to Get a New Job

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 395 posts

Re: Noncompete Clauses: Signing Away the Right to Get a New Job

#151

Post by ScottBurson »

__derek__ wrote: post #72
ScottBurson wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Noncompete enforceability is, to me, a very interesting example of how individuals pursuing their own self-interest leads to a bad outcome for everyone -- a classic Tragedy of the Commons. In a state that allows noncompetes, it's in pretty much every employer's interest to use them and enforce them as much as they can; and yet over the long run, their doing that strangles the economy -- not fatally, but enough so tha…

> In a state that allows noncompetes, it's in pretty much every employer's interest to use them and enforce them as much as they can If I may nitpick, I'd argue that it only appears to be in employers' best interest to use/enforce them, in the same way that the butts-in-seats/time-in-office metrics are used to gauge performance. It makes sense in a first-pass estimation but breaks down when one considers the cultural…

I agree that it's short-sighted, not only in the way you describe, but also in a much more direct way. While noncompetes make it easier to retain existing employees, and pay them less, by the same token they make it harder to hire new ones. This ties into the psychology of loss aversion [0]: people pay much more attention to what they have and could lose, than what they don't have but could gain. One could argue that outlawing noncompetes is important to protect society from the effects of this almost instinctive irrationality in human psychology.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

Re: Noncompete Clauses: Signing Away the Right to Get a New Job

#152

Post by SimbaOnSteroids »

matt4077 wrote: post #76
SimbaOnSteroids wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other thing is, and i don't disagree it limits freedom btw, but if you're not in a pool of other people shopping for healthcare you have no bargaining power.

10 tries at an answer, and you got closest to reality: Employment creates a 'risk pool', specifically one that people are unlikely to join just to get insurance. It is one of very few ways to mitigate the "adverse selection" problem, i. e. only old and/or sick people getting insurance, thereby raising prices, and repeat. The other way is an insurance mandate, or, if you want to cut the chase, single-payer tax-funded…

Single payer needs to be what happens, it's like infrastructure projects/militaries if it's privately owned it can be well above the quality or well below quality that a publicly owned entities but being privately owned for profit kinda defeats the purpose of these institutions.

Re: Noncompete Clauses: Signing Away the Right to Get a New Job

#153

Post by Cerium »

mikeash wrote: post #118
hammock wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A company is paying me to work for them, they're not paying to own me. When I'm off the clock, my time is my own, up to and including doing paid work for anyone else I want. Suboptimal if you're working for a direct competitor. Standard conflict of interest stuff. Would you accept Donald Trump working for Russia on the night shift? Remember, non-compete is not the same as IP clause - which says anything you create o…

Donald Trump gets paid more than enough to be considered to be on the clock 24/7, and it's generally understood that this is the nature of that job.

Well, as President Donald Trump gets paid a base salary of 400k. As another poster pointed out the difference between 40 hours / week, and 24/7 is 4.2x. That would mean that "more than enough" for a normal salary is $95k.

Re: Noncompete Clauses: Signing Away the Right to Get a New Job

#154

Post by afterburner »

postfacto wrote: post #78

If you're going to violate a noncompete, don't tell anyone you're going to work for a competitor. Keep yourself as small of a target as possible for your former competitor's legal team. - When you quit, tell your now former employer that you're quitting to pursue something other than what was your established industry. Your (made up) lifelong dream of starting your own microbrew brand, Macrome supply business, winery…

You live in fear.

Re: Noncompete Clauses: Signing Away the Right to Get a New Job

#155

Post by afterburner »

rhapsodic wrote: post #117
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #65

This is a kind of feudalism, where the peasants need to rely on the strength of lords and their knights (lawyers) to enjoy basic freedoms.

>This is a kind of feudalism, where the peasants need to rely on the strength of lords and their knights (lawyers) to enjoy basic freedoms. Actually, I think it's a hallmark of a free society where consenting adults are able to enter into, or not, any agreements they choose. The problem is that some people make bad choices in the agreements they commit to, or they enter them in bad faith, not intending to honor them,…

Do you know what a power imbalance is?

You think having your life controlled by a corporation is a sign of a free society?

Re: Noncompete Clauses: Signing Away the Right to Get a New Job

#156

Post by humanrebar »

orangecat wrote: post #146
humanrebar wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an American, I'm routinely disappointed every time they announce "healthcare reform" and this issue isn't even part the conversation. Both major parties have failed on this.

McCain tried in 2008: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/20... . The Democrats immediately attacked it as "taking away your existing insurance". It really is baffling. Everybody would understand that it would be terrible if employers were the primary providers of housing, food, or transportation. But for some reason with health insurance, we not only accept but demand it.

> we not only accept but demand it

Hey, leave me out of it. Plus, polling is misleading. There are certainly options we could settle for, like grandfather clauses and gradual phase-ins.

Re: Noncompete Clauses: Signing Away the Right to Get a New Job

#157

Post by tensor »

mikeash wrote: post #30
etjossem wrote: post #9

Worth remembering, especially for those just entering the software field: by the time a potential employer gives you an employment agreement to sign, they've already decided they want you. At that point, it's on them to give you a palatable offer. They may include a noncompete clause for one of two reasons: 1) to prevent you from working somewhere else at the same time, which can create all sorts of conflicts of inte…

I've never been presented with one (and hope I never will) so this is hypothetical, but I have a hard time imagining even doing that. A company is paying me to work for them, they're not paying to own me. When I'm off the clock, my time is my own, up to and including doing paid work for anyone else I want. I'd make an exception if they increased my pay accordingly. But considering that they're asking for 4.2x more of…

Frankly I find working for a direct competitor in your off hours to be highly unethical and have no issues with employers trying to ban it in the contract. You're no more entitled to do whatever you want than you are to be employed. It's fair for you to want to work for direct competitors, and it's also fair for employers not to hire you if this is your demand.

Re: Noncompete Clauses: Signing Away the Right to Get a New Job

#158

Post by stale2002 »

AnkhMorporkian wrote: post #112
3pt14159 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Only if you're very inexperienced will this be tricky, once you're senior nobody bats an eye when I ask for things to be changed in the contract. A contract is part of communicating how we will work together. Demonstrate that you're competent by clearly communicating the changes you want and why you want them and if they react back poorly then you dodged a major bullet, since they'll also communicate poorly in…

I've been working in software for a long time, and have been asked to sign non-competes over a dozen times by now. I'm a contractor, which makes it much easier to turn down (how the hell could I possibly keep working with a non-compete?), but the OP is correct in that almost everything is a PDF nowadays. You have to bitch and scream to get a contract changed. Most naive workers won't understand that there's a negotia…

"You have to bitch and scream to get a contract changed."

Print out the PDF, pencil in your changes, and then scan the document.

Thats what me and my school would do for actual contracts that were made for performing artist contracts, ect.

Re: Noncompete Clauses: Signing Away the Right to Get a New Job

#159

Post by mikeash »

Cerium wrote: post #153
mikeash wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donald Trump gets paid more than enough to be considered to be on the clock 24/7, and it's generally understood that this is the nature of that job.

Well, as President Donald Trump gets paid a base salary of 400k. As another poster pointed out the difference between 40 hours / week, and 24/7 is 4.2x. That would mean that "more than enough" for a normal salary is $95k.

That was me. And $95,000/year is a pretty good salary. Don't forget the free room and board on top of that.

Re: Noncompete Clauses: Signing Away the Right to Get a New Job

#160

Post by phamilton »

delinka wrote: post #148
phamilton wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but this is equivalent to being let go without severence. You have no buffer to get you through thr job finding process.

Severance is a wholly different matter. It's completely unrelated to a noncompete clause.

The stated case is that you could be let go, but will continue to be paid until the noncompete is terminated. The result is that day 1 of job hunting is day 1 of not getting paid. I'm saying this is akin to termination without severence.
Post reply on HN