Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think usually because the employee opens his fat mouth is why.
Sounds like the legally smart thing to do is to lie when they ask you where you're going to work after you quit. Which sucks. It's not good to lie, and it's bad if legal circumstances effectively require you to lie, but I guess it may be necessary here. A couple of suggestions for things you can tell them: * you want to travel the world for a year and find yourself. * you're going to start your own company. Maybe eve…
Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes
211–218 of 218 posts
Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I ain't agreeing to take a 2 year hole in my employment.
If they're paying you to take garden leave, you're technically still employed by them. By my reckoning, that wouldn't leave a gap. Another possible explanation: "I took a two-year sabbatical to work on my own projects and improve my skills".
One time I got $50k and full salary to stay on with a group that was in run down mode. I wouldn't take that option again.
Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really saying that 100% of your time is worth 25% of your salary? And that isn't even counting work-related costs.
I have a right to earn a living. I have worked many years preparing to do so in a particular area of trade. There is a market price for my skills. Taking 25% of that away is unfair, is my point. Justifying it by saying "Oh, but you could travel!" is the same level of empathy as saying "Let them eat cake".
Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany also has strong labor laws and has a youth unemployment rate of about 7.7% with the lowest overall unemployment rate in the EU and second to lowest in the world. Your argument is not valid.
It's not my argument, it OECD economist reports. Also, Germany laws are not France laws; comparing them is not valid. Here [1] is a well cited paper showing from theory and empirically that gains in labor do result in unemployment. From the abstract: "Tight hiring and firing rules and military conscription most clearly seem to have adverse effects". Here's [2] a slightly older one addressing France and Germany in par…
Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not my argument, it OECD economist reports. Also, Germany laws are not France laws; comparing them is not valid. Here [1] is a well cited paper showing from theory and empirically that gains in labor do result in unemployment. From the abstract: "Tight hiring and firing rules and military conscription most clearly seem to have adverse effects". Here's [2] a slightly older one addressing France and Germany in par…
He's not ignoring you, he's just disputing the results of the research as stated. You are claiming better worker protection = higher unemployment. Clearly it has been demonstrated this is not true. What is also not true is the converse; one is not required for the other. You can then of course claim "but it is true, because these studies still say so!" but that doesn't make it an established thing. It is a hypothesis…
When normalizing across other variables, this is consistent with the econ literature.
>Clearly it has been demonstrated this is not true.
Cite that it's clearly not true. I don't think it's been clearly shown these have correlation 0 or negative.
>one is not required for the other.
No one has claimed that.
>but that doesn't make it an established thing
Nothing is ever established to the certainty for enough nitpickers. But when the majority of literature of experts leans in one direction, it's safe to bet that their majority opinion is most likely the truth. Sometimes that is overturned, but the majority of expert consensus opinions remain correct.
Do you think that making it hard to fire workers makes it more or less risky on the part of an employer to hire a new worker? If more risky, then how is this offset in hiring?
Employers and markets are not wholly stupid.
Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'll be polite and not accuse you of fabricating. Then why mention it? So you can say you mentioned it? You can look up my name - I've written a decent amount of material for pay, some of which is also on my website, precisely because I requested the copyrights. You can look over my employment and side project history to see I have gotten the ability to both work on commercial stuff at work and off work. Instead of…
I apologize if I came across as overly harsh. I did look up your resume, and it does confirm my assertions. In fact, you are not directly contradicting any of them. I made three assertions: 1. You will not be able to negotiate away non-compete clauses with large, powerful employers. 2. You may be able to negotiate them as a senior candidate for smaller companies. 3. Junior candidates will find it hard to negotiate th…
The majority of programmers don't work for large companies. Many of the biggest employers employ in California, further skewing the data towards programmers not having to worry. About half of all states don't even have non-compete laws for programmers.
As such, I suspect your losing jobs by refusing to sign them is the atypical experience, not mine.
>Your resume shows you to be a perfect example of the 2nd assertion. You are a senior engineer....
I was once junior, with the same results...
>but your resume shows you took a Lead Programmer position in your very first year of full-time work.
Yep, negotiation, not experience, which is exactly my point. And I didn't take any job thrown at me, I worked carefully to move to a situation I wanted to be in. One can move themselves up career ranks much faster by learning how to sell themselves and to take risks, than by trying to follow the company playbook.
If you do what most people do, you will get the outcome most people get. To do differently, make consistent, concentrated effort to do things differently in the proper manner and time.
I've found more developers over my career are not advancing to where they want or getting what they want through lack of learning how to deal with negotiation. They too often think the rules are fixed and rewards a solely a function of their technical skill, both of which are false.
I've taught many interns at companies I've been at how to negotiate better, and many of them were able to get significant contract changes made on their very first job.
I've also have many developers ask how to move up/over, and when I recommend they take on new or harder projects as they're presented, those programmers shy away from the unknown to do what they know. Those types, fear of risk, don't move as fast or as far. I don't begrudge them, they prefer safety, but when they complain later in their career that they didn't go as far as someone that did do scary, out of comfort things, it's mostly their own choices.
>I still caution against concluding that this is how it works for everyone else as well.
I never thought it works this way for everyone, but in many cases, it's not the systems fault; it's the employees fault for not working the process smarter, and for not developing skills useful for dealing with people as much as they develop their technical skills.
Interviews are a sales process. Learning to sell is a very useful skill, at every level. I find few developers that have learned this and do it well.
Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes
#217I've always refused to sign any contract with a non-compete. In every case, the employer has removed or voided it. The only exceptions were jobs in Chicago, and I walked away from two different jobs because they couldn't change their contract. I often don't even bring it up during the interview, until I get an offer. At that point if they're not willing to negotiate my basic rights as a worker, it's not a company I w…
Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Have you read the article? Yes. > In many areas where non-competes are legal, all employers slap them on their contracts. As others have pointed out, it's not uncommon to get them (and other clauses) struck out of employment agreements during hiring. I've struck that one from all places I've worked, I've struck all patent and IP claims out that were broad enough to cover things I do outside of work, I've gotten copy…
> As others have pointed out, it's not uncommon to get them (and other clauses) struck out of employment agreements during hiring. I've struck that one from all places I've worked, I've struck all patent and IP claims out that were broad enough to cover things I do outside of work, I've gotten copyrights assigned to me instead of the employer, and so on, even very early in my career. I'll be polite and not accuse you…
First time was as a new grad. The non-compete literally prevented me from working within 200 miles of my home in the same industry. I noped out. Even when they removed it I wasn't interested because that's shady.
Second time was at a different company. I just let them know I wasn't comfortable giving up my 1st amendment rights just to work somewhere and they considered it and let me take it out. My HR person was awesome and the company treated it's employees well.
Not disputing your other points, just want people to know they should at the very least make sure to ask. It may end up with a no, but it could end up turning out alright.