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

211–220 of 395 posts

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

#211

Post by logn »

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…

Employers are in a unique position to offer group health plans. This used to be more relevant before Obamacare and is becoming relevant again. There is no equivalent to a group health plan one can buy individually.

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

#212

Post by phkahler »

ue_ wrote: post #182
closeparen wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And while he's working another shift at another company he's getting additional training which is good for the first employer. This is all bullshit trying to argue the validity of modern day slavery.

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

#213

Post by kobeya »

forinti wrote: post #195
mikeash wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was me. And $95,000/year is a pretty good salary. Don't forget the free room and board on top of that.

And the retirement plan: ex-presidents get the same salary as the current president. Not bad at all.

Wow, is that true of vice presidents that become president for 3hrs when air force one goes offline in the middle of a national security crisis?

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

#214

Post by carvalho »

My first (and last) non-compete was when I was starting out as a web developer in a small company. By the time I fully realized what I had signed I had contractually given up my right to work for any other webdev company for 1.5 years, and even worse, the company owner stated that he believed the non-compete also extended to all our clients (and the clients of a major client) too. This meant nearly all banks, Heineken, Google, and consultancy agencies (we ran a job board).

Needless to say I am not a web developer anymore.

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

#215

Post by kobeya »

phkahler wrote: post #212
ue_ wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And while he's working another shift at another company he's getting additional training which is good for the first employer. This is all bullshit trying to argue the validity of modern day slavery.

Be reasonable. It's not slavery, nor even indentured servitude when you can quit at any time.

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

#216

Post by phkahler »

logn wrote: post #211
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…

Employers are in a unique position to offer group health plans. This used to be more relevant before Obamacare and is becoming relevant again. There is no equivalent to a group health plan one can buy individually.

Another problem with "group plans" is that large companies are actually self-insured. The insurance provider is just handling the paperwork, but you are part of a group of people separate from other plans and the employer is on the hook to cover all costs (it's not always what the actuary predicts). The advantage is that working people are generally healthier than the average, so this results in lower costs vs plans that cover the general public.

The purpose of insurance is to amortize the cost of unpredictable things across time and population. Group plans are just another way to select higher quality (lower cost) people for the plan. Of course this means higher than average cost for programs like medicare.

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

#217

Post by phkahler »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #50
djsumdog wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

To be fair, Americans work. Work work work work[1]. Americans love work and elect politicians who love work. Europeans hate work. Hate hate hate hate[2]. They hate work and elect politicians who also hate work. That major (cultural? economic? social? political?) difference between American and European attitudes towards work might explain these statistics: American vs EU unemployment rate: 4.7% vs 8.2% American vs EU…

unemployment rates and youth unemployment rates sound interesting, but what about measures of happiness? depression? In America we tend to select metrics which also enforce the work, work, work, mentality by making it look like a good thing.

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

#218

Post by deaddodo »

stale2002 wrote: post #70
etjossem wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This suggestion is mainly directed at newcomers to the industry, who may not have the reputation or experience to be able to credibly push back on many points of their employment agreement. Once you're in a seller's market for your level of skill (as I'm sure you are), you don't need this advice anymore and I'd encourage you not to let your employer restrict your moonlight projects. But particularly if it's your firs…

It depends on the state. In California, for example, Non-completes are notoriously unenforceable. I'll sign whatever illegal documents you want me to sign, knowning that they don't matter. You might respond by saying something like "what if they go after you anyway, even though it is unenforceable.". But the problem is that they could just do that anyway, illegal contract or not.

They're not "notoriously difficult to enforce", they're specifically unenforcable to non-executives. The CA legislature and judiciary have long since settled any questions regarding these and also have frameworks in place for companies trying to make you an "executive engineer" or "director of blah" to try and get around it.

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

#219

Post by deaddodo »

etjossem wrote: post #71
stale2002 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the state. In California, for example, Non-completes are notoriously unenforceable. I'll sign whatever illegal documents you want me to sign, knowning that they don't matter. You might respond by saying something like "what if they go after you anyway, even though it is unenforceable.". But the problem is that they could just do that anyway, illegal contract or not.

> But the problem is that they could just do that anyway, illegal contract or not. The difference is that with an illegal contract, your future employer might actually believe it's more headache than it's worth to fight. I would err on the side of casually striking it out of the employment contract, simply saying "this part of the standard document doesn't apply in our state" etc.

Your new employer doesn't have to fight anything. Non-executive non-competes are specifically disallowed by the CA gov't. It's up to your previous employer to prove you were an executive (upper management/c-suite) and sue you, not vice versa.

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

#220

Post by lotharbot »

mikeash wrote: post #123
lotharbot wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "When I'm off the clock, my time is my own, up to and including doing paid work for anyone else I want." At least one of the reasons for a non-compete clause is to make sure you're not doing stuff on the clock for your employer, and then getting double-paid by a competitor for essentially the same end result but without the competitor having to pay for the whole process of getting that result. Like, if they're payi…

If I'm implementing literally the same stuff at the same time then I bet that's a massive copyright violation. You have to take pains to avoid contamination when reverse engineering a product, for example, and that doesn't even involve the original staff. Seems that your argument could also be used to justify lifetime noncompetes. If I work for a company, gain experience, then go work for another company, they're get…

But your next company is getting your prior experience, which becomes more out-of-date every day, not your up-to-the-minute experience on what might be an actively competing project.
Post reply on HN