Live data from Hacker News

The case for banning non-competes

slowboring.com

181–190 of 338 posts

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#181

Should be a requirement that, to be enforceable, a non-compete must pay the agreeing employee his salary for the duration of the agreement.

This kind of leave really doesn't exist outside of finance, and even then most companies would rather let you go unless you actually know some critical secret sauce.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#183
post #23

There are two kinds of non-competes, and both have problems. First, there's the really nasty ones saying "If you ever work here, you can't work for any competitor for X years", and they're clearly abusing of employees, labor, etc. I hope there is a straight up ban on that. The second kind is "You can't compete with us while you work here". And that is a much more complex beast. Obviously, if I work as a developer mak…

[deleted]

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#184
post #23

There are two kinds of non-competes, and both have problems. First, there's the really nasty ones saying "If you ever work here, you can't work for any competitor for X years", and they're clearly abusing of employees, labor, etc. I hope there is a straight up ban on that. The second kind is "You can't compete with us while you work here". And that is a much more complex beast. Obviously, if I work as a developer mak…

Had a non-compete (consulting). Employer was cool at my old workplace. We didn't have any super-proprietary knowledge or book of business to walk off with - so generally they weren't enforced. But they needed it to protect the business and I can understand that.

In my state, by law the contract can't cause 'undue difficulties'. You could prob make the case that were I to leave, it prevents me from working in my industry - I'd call that a good enough argument to go before a judge with, esp in a blue state.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#185
Non-competes in France are regulated by law. If you put one in the contract, it means that you have to compensate me (70% of total compensation if memory serves me right) during the time it is enforced.

Since there is no way for me company to know where I am going, it may mean 70% of salary for free, if I go to a non competitor.

It is rarely enforced, though.

The second non compete (while working at a company) is very muddy waters though.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#186
post #4

Should be a requirement that, to be enforceable, a non-compete must pay the agreeing employee his salary for the duration of the agreement.

Some people might think that was a good deal to travel the world but not everyone. So you're at the peak of your career and you need to take a couple years off at significantly lower total comp (because no bonus/equity).

In the current system you will never get wealthy from salary and bonuses, because companies are being taxed through workers by proxy and the pressure is for keeping salaries as low as possible. Only way to break through is to start own business and become lucky. Big companies keep lobbying for more red tape to keep new competition at bay.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problematically though, in most of the US ridiculously broad NCCs are enforceable. The only place where you're safe is California, where the only way for an NCC to stick is related to business (co)-ownership (selling the business, dissolving a partnership, or dissolving an LLC). Out-of-state NCCs are also un-enforceable in California.

You made a very general statement! They are enforceable because usually the violator is doing something ridiculously broad. Like going to work for McDonalds R&D after leaving Burger King as the VP of product design. My anecdotal experience: I once worked for a major bank and someone who left another major bank held a meeting with developers of a next-gen platform where he basically explained, in explicit detail, his…

> I once worked for a major bank and someone who left another major bank held a meeting with developers of a next-gen platform where he basically explained, in explicit detail, his old employer's entire platform. I would argue a non-compete would be 100% enforceable here.

This is what non-disclosure agreements are for. A non-compete would basically have prevented him from getting this new job.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#188
I think that non-competes can be valid in very narrow, very specific scopes. One of my friends has a job that involves evaluating companies and allocating millions of dollars of funding towards them. His contract states that he cannot go and work for the companies that he's evaluating for two years.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#189
I think the issue with non competes is that it was taken from the world of highly paid executives and some companies tried ( https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compet... ) to apply those to rank and file employees. Needless to say, that sort of non-compete should be outright banned.

I do have some mixed feelings about them the higher you go in the company hierarchy.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#190

My state has severely limited non-compete agreements to the point that they’re only narrowly enforceable, if at all. That didn’t stop one of my previous employers from using non-compete scare tactics against employees. Many of us left in a large exodus when benefits and bonuses were cut and management made a number of other bad decisions. The company responded by sending remaining employees an e-mail with a list of c…

Something like this happened to people who left my first job in the industry.

They didn't have to win the lawsuit. The competitor that the employee went to fired the employee after they started. Presumably, it was because they didn't want any problems from the employee's previous employer, or just didn't want the headache at all.

Post reply on HN