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

21–30 of 395 posts

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

#21

Post by vmarsy »

valuearb wrote: post #3

"California law prohibits noncompete clauses, contributing to the inveterate poaching with which the state’s technology industry was founded. It can be brutal for employers, but it helps raise wages and has created a situation where any company looking to hire a bunch of engineers in a hurry, be it an established giant or a start-up, feels it should locate there."

Some states are starting to move in that direction too,like Washington state but this isn't as strong as California :

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/scaled-back-bill-aimed-providi...

Apparently Google and labor unions supported the original bill, but the article says that's not the case for Amazon and Microsoft

The scaled back bill removed those points:

> Make noncompetition agreements void if the employee is a temporary or seasonal employee, or is terminated without just cause or laid off.

> Create a rebuttable presumption that agreements restricting competition for more than one year after termination of employment or for employees who are not executives are unreasonable.

> Make noncompetition agreements with independent contractors void

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

#22

Post by ben1040 »

monksy wrote: post #10
dboreham wrote: post #2

Since this should be illegal, or at least illegal absent some reasonable compensation for giving up the right to freely seek alternative employment (e.g. a big retention bonus), presumably our politicians offering "regulatory relief" are to blame?

If the employee was terminated the non-compete should be terminated as well.

I had a friend who got RIF'd from a software company, and their offboarding paperwork included a 1 year noncompete that tied their severance as the consideration. Essentially, "we don't want you working here, but we also don't want you working anywhere else, either."

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

#23

Post by stupidhn »

amorphid wrote: post #15
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…

I wouldn't say it's the only reason. I'd argue the only they reason they offer it is because employees expect it. Private insurance is super expensive, and the government doesn't offer healthcare to most working professionals.

If companies didn't offer Healthcare, there would be more social pressure for a public option. As it is, too many people saying, 'got mine, don't care about yours'.

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

#24

Post by phamilton »

delinka wrote: post #18
vostok wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not excellent because they stop paying you if they terminate the noncompete, but you also can't look for a new job until the very end of your noncompete period.

Perhaps you're right if they terminate your employment and the noncompete remains in force. But if they've terminated the noncompete, it's no longer in force and you can find work with a competitor.

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

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

#25

Post by stupidhn »

vostok wrote: post #16
delinka wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they terminated the noncompete, that's excellent! I'm thinking you've made a typo. ;-)

It's not excellent because they stop paying you if they terminate the noncompete, but you also can't look for a new job until the very end of your noncompete period.

I'd love to know where you live that an employer can fire you and expect you to honor a non compete.

The second they stop paying you your obligations end. No judge in the land will prevent you from being unable to earn a living.

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

#26

Post by djsumdog »

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…

I agree entirely. Student debt and healthcare have evolved to be a means of keeping people trapped in industry. After dealing with health care in other countries, I wrote a post on what I found returning to America:

http://fightthefuture.org/article/returning-to-america-and-t...

America wants you to work. Work work work work work. Our European neighbours can save up and take a few months off every few years and not have to worry about health care. In America, we only get socialised healthcare when we're too old to work and are no longer useful to society.

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

#27

Post by khuey »

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.

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

#28

Post by stupidhn »

ben1040 wrote: post #22
monksy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the employee was terminated the non-compete should be terminated as well.

I had a friend who got RIF'd from a software company, and their offboarding paperwork included a 1 year noncompete that tied their severance as the consideration. Essentially, "we don't want you working here, but we also don't want you working anywhere else, either."

If the severance falls outside of the mandatory amount by law, then this is reasonable. They are paying you not to work for a competitor for a time.

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

#29

Post by watwut »

flamedoge wrote: post #11
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #8

Using "poaching" to describe a company hiring someone from another company, needs to die. Companies do not own people. It is strictly a business relationship. I think that the US as a whole should follow California in outlawing non-competes. It definitely has been shown to be workable.

I think it's fine. Dirtier the connotation, the greater the company must feel to fight against it to keep you.

They fight by making mutual agreement that they wont hire each other employees.

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

#30

Post by mikeash »

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 my time than usual, they'd better be paying me at least 4.2x a normal full-time salary.

I do have a little experience with making changes to contracts that the other party doesn't want to change, and to that end I'd like to add two more things. First, it's likely they'll use the phrase "standard contract" and say that it just can't be changed. Second, if you've gotten that far, it's quite likely they'll change your minds if you stick to your guns. It's tempting to cave in when they say "sorry, we can't accept changes," but don't.

Post reply on HN