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

Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

casetext.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–179 of 179 posts

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#171

Post by mathattack »

dredmorbius wrote: post #168
mathattack wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an economics term for this, though I'm spacing on the name. It's the same reason the taxi lobby is so strong - it's a subset of 1 issue voters with concentrated financial support of key issues. It's also behind why tax loopholes are so hard to close - a small subset cares a lot, but the masses less so.

There are several. Smith noted Hobbes's truism: wealth is power. You might be thinking of the logic of collective action, Mancur Olsen.

Yes - Mancur Olson it is. Thanks! It's more subtle than just Wealth is Power, as it also explains some counterintuitive results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#172

Post by javert »

fapjacks wrote: post #170
javert wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than responding to my point intellectually, you instead accuse me of being abused as a child and state that perhaps the death of one of my loved ones would "fix" me. There is nothing in my posting history that would even remoltely justify anything you have said here. Your theories about my psychology are based on nothing and are totally wrong. This post is incredibly inappropriate.

Let this be a lesson for you: This is what your comments sound like almost everywhere you post. None of my comments to you are any less insane than the kinds of comments you make almost exclusively. If it really were an issue of responding intellectually, you would have a history of doing so, instead of the drivel you paint across HN. You're pretty clearly trolling; you reap what you sow. Let this serve as a moment o…

This comment is abusive. It's also patently untrue. I will not respond further.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#173

Post by dredmorbius »

spacecowboy_lon wrote: post #143
dredmorbius wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in response, California firms repeatedly engaged in (illegal) noncompete and anti-poaching collusion to both drive down wages and limit labour mobility.

Then the responsible directors should have been banned for life as not fit and proper persons to be directors of a company.

I'd definitely like to see some personal penalty. Though Jobs is already dead.

Worth noting: much as I despise Facebook, Zuckerberg did the Right Thing here and didn't play along (though it's not clear whether or not FB reported the collusion).

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#174

Post by kabouseng »

michaelochurch wrote: post #151
kabouseng wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the junior engineer's old company won't sue because he is just a junior engineer... The non-compete risk probably comes only with the star hires / client facing employees (risk of clients being lured to the other company).

Except that the junior engineer's old company won't sue because he is just a junior engineer... True in practice, but there is risk. Plus, it's just a shitty conversation to be compelled to have when you're trying to convince someone to hire you. ("One last thing, I'm under this non-compete, so can I get a written agreement to cover legal costs?") An executive can probably get that protection. For a junior, that's a…

>>The only time it happens in tech is when there's a deliberate attempt to destroy someone's reputation, like what a few people (none especially important) from Google tried to do after I left that place.

That sucks, sorry. I agree it is an unnecessary complication for engineers which may or may not give companies any real protection.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#175

Post by mcv »

sillygeese wrote: post #159
mcv wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have a very limited view of employer-employee relationships. Work is a big part of our life, but not all of it. We don't live to work, but work to live. Just acknowledging that would go a long way. Give employees the room they need to get their lives in order if they need it. Don't work them til they drop, but give them a healthy amount of vacation time, and only ask them to work overtime in extreme cases…

What exactly prompted you to give me that advice? I'm planning to treat my employees very well, if I ever have some.

Did you miss that I responded to you? You asked, I answered the question. That prompted me.

It's great that you intend to treat your employees well. I hope every company does that.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#176

Post by sillygeese »

mcv wrote: post #175
sillygeese wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly prompted you to give me that advice? I'm planning to treat my employees very well, if I ever have some.

Did you miss that I responded to you? You asked, I answered the question. That prompted me. It's great that you intend to treat your employees well. I hope every company does that.

Nope, I just didn't see how you reached the conclusion that I needed to be told to treat my employees well.

I still don't :p

But nevermind.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#177

Post by dredmorbius »

mathattack wrote: post #171
dredmorbius wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are several. Smith noted Hobbes's truism: wealth is power. You might be thinking of the logic of collective action, Mancur Olsen.

Yes - Mancur Olson it is. Thanks! It's more subtle than just Wealth is Power, as it also explains some counterintuitive results. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action

Quite. A personal fave.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#178

Post by dang »

jon-wood wrote: post #108

Sadly the most important ideas are rarely the best funded. For example Zynga has vastly more funds at their disposal than Wikipedia, and I'd challenge anyone to argue that's the right way round.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10014392 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#179

Post by mcv »

sillygeese wrote: post #176
mcv wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you miss that I responded to you? You asked, I answered the question. That prompted me. It's great that you intend to treat your employees well. I hope every company does that.

Nope, I just didn't see how you reached the conclusion that I needed to be told to treat my employees well. I still don't :p But nevermind.

You asked: "What's loyalty in this context anyway? Working your ass off for your employer? Or perhaps not firing someone even though he's holding your business back? I would recommend neither."

I consider those very short-sighted interpretations of loyalty, so I gave some better examples. If you don't want them, then don't ask for them.

I'm completely baffled by your reaction to receiving an answer to your question.

Post reply on HN