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

181–190 of 395 posts

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

#181

Post by coredog64 »

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.

Allegedly, the "Cadillac tax" on expensive employer provided plans was supposed to phase out employer coverage. That portion of the law purposefully wasn't indexed to inflation so that eventually more and more plans would be subject to the tax.

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

#182

Post by ue_ »

closeparen wrote: post #144
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…

Ah, but this is the nature of salary employment. There is no clock, so there is no such thing as "off the clock."

You raise a very interesting point. Engels said (I can't find the quote at the moment) that the time when the employee is away from work, i.e not selling his labour-power, he is useful to the employer, as the worker repairs himself and maintains himself with the wage given to him, and recharges his faculties by rest and sleep. In this way, the employee is never off the clock, he is always working for that employer in some form, readying himself for more work.

This is evident; the employer pays for the upkeep and maintenance of a machine, and in the same way he pays for the upkeep and maintenance of the worker in the form of a wage. The worker is a self-fixing machine which sells a commodity which is able to not only transfer but create value.

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

#183

Post by School-Cotton »

crdoconnor wrote: post #125
trustfundbaby wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just be ready for the company to pull the offer. Lots of times it's not even on the principle (we don't actually agree to the changes) but ego ... as in "who does this guy think he is pushing back on this contract that 100s of our employees have signed" If you're not ready for the company to walk away, be careful with this approach.

If it's an unreasonable contract and they refuse to make the contract reasonable upon request then having the company walk away probably means you dodged a bullet.

Is starving to death really better than signing a shitty contract?

It's not very easy for most people to find a new job.

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

#184

Post by School-Cotton »

marcosdumay wrote: post #119
joeblow9999 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is the small issue of whether or not your personal integrity allows you to sign an agreement you do not intend to abide, regardless of the legality.

Well, somebody is trying to impose something so absurd onto you that it is illegal, and you still have moral issues about lying to him?

Why would legality change the moral aspect?

The law is an imperfect reflection of morals, not the other way around. Most people's sense of morality is not based on the law.

It's possible for perfectly reasonable people to think non-competes are not "absurd", regardless of California employment law.

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

#185

Post by probably_wrong »

linkregister wrote: post #84
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 hear this advice about contracts of adhesion all the time, "just red line out the parts you don't like, just like in that scene in 50 Shades of Gray." Who in the software industry still gets offers like that? Everyone I know gets a DocuSign PDF they sign digitally. There's no opportunity to alter the document. There is basically no non-confrontational way to do this. If a software developer has a competing offer, s…

Quoting Herb Cohen's "You can negotiate anything" about signing leases under unfavorable terms:

"In rare cases where a person still hesitated to sign his or her name, I might add 'The legal people won't approve of any changes'. Keep in mind that the legal people didn't even know they wouldn't approve of any changes. Nevertheless, the phrase worked like a charm, since 'legal people' projects, on a wide screen, a powerful image of legitimacy. One theoretically doesn't fool around with the legal people."

Part of the magic of contracts is that everyone seems to believe they are magic. But a contract is simply an agreement between two parts. You are more than welcome to suggest changes to it.

As for the PDF, just because the company makes it harder for you to change its terms it doesn't mean that you can't still do it. For an extreme case, this guy[1] scanned a credit card contract, modified its terms, and send the modified application back. He then sued the bank, and won (they settled during a later appeal).

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing...

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

#186

Post by mikeash »

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…

"Being full time employed means just that."

"Full time" is just shorthand for "40 hours per week." Don't read things into it that aren't there.

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

#187

Post by bicubic »

bspn wrote: post #139
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…

Something I've seen a few times is a disclosure mechanism that allows you to declare any side projects that you're working on in your own time and carve those out from the IP assignment rights usually found within NDAs. Now, you can argue that it's not your employer's business what you do off the clock, but it at least provides a way to protect yourself from falling foul of the agreement and having the company later…

Do you have any evidence of that disclosure mechanism actually working in the employee's interest? I always read these clauses as 'notify us when you start new side projects so we can decide if we like them and take them off you for some reason or other'.

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

#188

Post by dimva »

In finance, companies will pay you your salary to not work if they decide to enforce a non-compete. It's written into the contract. I have friends who get to take year-long paid vacations when they switch jobs just because they work in HFT.

I'm surprised that this isn't law. I guess financial companies care about their employees more and/or their employees are more astute about contracts.

Companies shouldn't be allowed to prevent their ex-employees from earning a living. If it's that important for them to prevent the transfer of their proprietary information, they should be happy to pay for it.

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

#189

Post by yrashk »

khuey wrote: post #27
watertom wrote: post #12

Health insurance is also part of the rigged labor market. The only reason big companies offer health insurance is because it limits employees's freedom. It would be easy for the Fortune 100 or 200 in unison agree to eliminate health care and provide a higher salaries. It would make the companies more competitive globally and it would free them from a whole lot of other nonsense, but they don't drop healthcare. The re…

Health insurance, unlike additional wages, is not taxed. Buying their employees health insurance instead of paying them higher wages allows companies to transfer more money to their workers for the same cost.

the problem is not in insurance itself, then, but taxation

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

#190

Post by taneq »

hkmurakami wrote: post #124
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…

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.

Especially when, if you're in a position of any authority, there's a good chance you'll be negotiating in their behalf. So they want you to make good deals on their behalf while making a poor one on your own behalf...I guess they're hoping you have really poor self-esteem?
Post reply on HN