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

171–180 of 395 posts

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

#171

Post by otoburb »

fictioncircle wrote: post #145
hkmurakami wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the response is rescinded offer. The reasons will likely be along the lines of litigation risk, flight risk, culture fit, etc. Not joking btw. It's rather amazing that employers who expect rational, logical decision making on the job want applicants to suspend their reasoning and good judgment when it comes to negotiating compensation and employment terms.

> Not joking btw. It's rather amazing that employers who expect rational, logical decision making on the job want applicants to suspend their reasoning and good judgment when it comes to negotiating compensation and employment terms. Which is when you move on to the next employer if at all possible.

It's the "if at all possible" part that is not easy for most job applicants. This is probably only marginally easier even for HN users with a higher chance of being in white hot job markets.

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

#172

Post by StavrosK »

mseebach wrote: post #168
mikeash wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's sophistry. Being full time employed means just that. Obviously you have free time and that's great, but that's time to do not-work, not other work, and that's obvious and reasonable to the vast majority of employees, and it makes a lot of sense that prohibiting it is the default. The fact that we work in a field where your hobby might quite often be productive work to the extent that it could compete with your…

> Obviously you have free time and that's great, but that's time to do not-work, not other work, and that's obvious and reasonable to the vast majority of employees, and it makes a lot of sense that prohibiting it is the default.

Wow. So your point is that, because you like doing non-work on your own time, everybody should be prohibited from doing work?

> The fact that we work in a field where your hobby might quite often be productive work to the extent that it could compete with your day job is an extreme privilege and is to be treated as such.

Holy shit, seriously? I seriously have to ask my employer permission to have a hobby because the hobby might be lucrative? I have a hard time believing you actually hold these opinions.

My employer isn't the one who made my hobby "a privilege". My hobby might be a privilege, but I'm sure as hell not going to ask my employer whether they'll allow me to practice it.

It's not a privilege, by the way, because it's a hobby. At most, the "privilege" is the fact that people will pay for it, but it's the same for any person who actually enjoys the field they work in.

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

#173

Post by StavrosK »

arcanus wrote: post #127
ScottBurson wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, it's likely they'll use the phrase "standard contract" and say that it just can't be changed. I wonder what would happen if you said "Ah, so you're stipulating that it's a contract of adhesion. I'd like that in writing, please." Contracts of adhesion can be harder to enforce [0]. (IANAL, and I'm not necessarily recommending doing this, but I am curious what kind of response one would be likely to get.) [0] h…

Not a lawyer, and the Wikipedia was hard to follow. What do you think the implications of this in writing would be?

Writing "this is a contract of adhesion" basically means "we gave this contract to the applicant and asked them to take it or leave it".

A court will be much more favorable to the applicant, then, because presenting them with a contract they have little power over is something courts generally don't like, as it is unjust.

Asking the employer to write "this is a contract of adhesion" basically means "oh, you're screwing me over? Can you please write that this is a screwing-over contract on it?".

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

#174

Post by StavrosK »

mikeash wrote: post #163
tensor wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's wrong with it exactly? If I hired a flooring company to lay down some hardwood, I'm not going to tell them "now, don't go doing flooring for my competition for the duration of this job." What's the difference? You're right that it's fair for employers not to hire me if this is my demand. I never meant to imply otherwise. Employers can require all sorts of terrible things. Our recourse is mostly to either negot…

> What's the difference?

The difference is that you didn't spend lots of money researching a better type of floor-laying and then have the flooring company come in to lay the hardwood according to your specs. If you had, you might want to protect that secret.

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

#175

Post by StavrosK »

stale2002 wrote: post #158
AnkhMorporkian wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, or just use a PDF editor, which is even simpler. Just cross out lines or whatever.

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

#176

Post by nraynaud »

algesten wrote: post #43

I had a previous employer trying to stop me from working directly for a client. Only, I had brought in the client, I was the only one working for that client and that client didn't want anything to do with the rest of my employer. I felt morally OK with the situation... Only, my contract did have a noncompete. But then, this is Sweden, and noncompete clauses are almost not enforceable by Swedish law. An employer can'…

In France, the clause has to have a salary included in the non-compete. The former employer pays you for all the time they prevented you from working at your new job. I have never heard of any company asserting a non-compete.

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

#177

Post by simonebrunozzi »

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…

You are correct. And naive. Most people (and also myself, for most of my career) are very weak when confronted with these things. The world doesn't work the way you describe it.

Imagine you are getting your dream job at Amazon.com and someone is telling you to negotiate or discuss this part. Large companies are much less willing to accept anything like this.

However, in your defense, I am pretty sure that negotiating in itself doesn't cause any harm to your opportunity to be hired.

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

#178

Post by ue_ »

StavrosK wrote: post #174
mikeash wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with it exactly? If I hired a flooring company to lay down some hardwood, I'm not going to tell them "now, don't go doing flooring for my competition for the duration of this job." What's the difference? You're right that it's fair for employers not to hire me if this is my demand. I never meant to imply otherwise. Employers can require all sorts of terrible things. Our recourse is mostly to either negot…

> What's the difference? The difference is that you didn't spend lots of money researching a better type of floor-laying and then have the flooring company come in to lay the hardwood according to your specs. If you had, you might want to protect that secret.

Then they should protect that with non-disclosure agreements, or realise that they can't survive as a business (or don't want to) without restricting the freedom of the workers to do what they want to outside of the time paid to the employee in the form of wage.

I have little or no sympathy for businesses which insist on restricting freedom outside of those hours for which it pays me wage.

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

#179

Post by coredog64 »

mikeash wrote: post #159
Cerium wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The government provides the cooks and household staff, but the president is responsible for paying for the food.

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

#180

Post by ccozan »

easilyBored wrote: post #140
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…

Non competes should be: Upon leaving you cannot work for a competitor BUT, only if we offer to pay you the salary you had when you left. And only for a max of 1-3 years. Otherwise they should be illegal.

In german civil and commercial right, that is exacly the case. One can indeed enforce the non compete in which he has to stipulate in the contract the amount it is going to pay you if you are not allowed to work for someone else. If this is not stipulated, the clause cannot be enforced.
Post reply on HN