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

221–230 of 395 posts

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

#221

Post by mirimir »

mikeash wrote: post #30
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…

> A company is paying me to work for them, they're not paying to own me.

True. But said company may not want your experience, let alone anything you learn about their business, to benefit competitors. Indeed, they may consider your training with them to be an investment, which gives them rights about what you do with it.

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

#222

Post by ue_ »

kobeya wrote: post #215
phkahler wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some would compare it to a form of slavery, and I think such comparisons are reasonable.

"The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is this, that the worker of today seems to be free because he is not sold once for all, but piecemeal by the day, the week, the year, and because no one owner sells him to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particular person, but of the whole property-holding class." (Engels)

"The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general."

The idea that you can "quit at any time" is a farce; you must then find employment under someone else in order to survive, or manage to amass sufficient capital, something which is not an option for most people, especially with family. An extreme example of this logic utterly failing is in those developing nations with sweatshops.

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

#223

Post by solidsnack9000 »

rhapsodic wrote: post #149
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think noncompetes are the hallmark of a free society?

>Why do you think noncompetes are the hallmark of a free society? You parsed it wrong. I meant to say that consenting adults freely entering (or not) into agreements with other consenting adults is a (not the ) hallmark of a free society. Why do you think that consenting adults freely entering into contracts are analogous to peasants and lords?

The issue is whether people exercise their rights "under the protection" of more powerful (but private) entities. For example, in some of the cases cited in the New York Times, courts acknowledged that non-competes were not to be enforced -- but only after the hiring company went to bat for their new staffer.

If someone enters into an unenforceable agreement, they should be freed of it speedily and inexpensively. Maybe the terms of the agreement are such that its' unenforceability is non-obvious; but it is ultimately the one bringing suit who should bear the cost of wasting everyone's time in that case.

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

#224

Post by solidsnack9000 »

contravariant wrote: post #203
rhapsodic wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is a kind of feudalism, where the peasants need to rely on the strength of lords and their knights (lawyers) to enjoy basic freedoms. Actually, I think it's a hallmark of a free society where consenting adults are able to enter into, or not, any agreements they choose. The problem is that some people make bad choices in the agreements they commit to, or they enter them in bad faith, not intending to honor them,…

I won't say that your definition of a free society is wrong, but I think it's worth pointing out that it doesn't exactly rule out a feudal system.

Yeah. The feudal arrangement was always understand as "reciprocal" and one can argue, it was pretty good relative to the alternatives at times.

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

#226

Post by Trundle »

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.

Every discussion on productivity on here is basically dominated by people talking about how 40 hours is even too much for high quality creative work and that much of the heavy lifting for ideas is done when not in front of a keyboard and that solutions often come to people during their downtime.

Funny how that sentiment disappears completely when the topic of employers wanting your total productive output comes up.

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

#227

Post by pfarnsworth »

deaddodo wrote: post #219
etjossem wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

But then you have to deal with a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, etc. Just because it's unenforceable doesn't mean that your shitty employer can't sue you. Why not just head it off at the beginning and have it right there in the signed contract?

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

#228

Post by Buttons840 »

3pt14159 wrote: post #116
AnkhMorporkian wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been working in software for a long time, and have been asked to sign non-competes over a dozen times by now. I'm a contractor, which makes it much easier to turn down (how the hell could I possibly keep working with a non-compete?), but the OP is correct in that almost everything is a PDF nowadays. You have to bitch and scream to get a contract changed. Most naive workers won't understand that there's a negotia…

I've never had to send more than an email. > Hey Frank, just read through the non-compete and I have a few small changes. 1. Since we're only working on a proto-type for a classifier for sorting documents can we amend the non-compete to specifically mention that domain? I don't want to limit my options unnecessarily but I appreciate you wanting to stop me from turning around and selling this stuff to Microsoft once y…

It may be advantageous to purposely avoid an in person discussion of the contract (especially with an HR person who couldn't care less if you're hired or not), and then bring it up in an email. Because an email allows you to fully explain your position before being interrupted with something like "it's a standard contract" which would tend to shut down an in person conversation.

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

#229

Post by emodendroket »

tensor wrote: post #157
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…

Frankly I find working for a direct competitor in your off hours to be highly unethical and have no issues with employers trying to ban it in the contract. You're no more entitled to do whatever you want than you are to be employed. It's fair for you to want to work for direct competitors, and it's also fair for employers not to hire you if this is your demand.

I can see that, but "competitors" is often defined so vaguely that it could apply to essentially anyone.

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

#230

Post by emodendroket »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #177
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…

You are correct. And naive. Most people (and also myself, for most of my career) are very weak when confronted with these things. The world doesn't work the way you describe it. Imagine you are getting your dream job at Amazon.com and someone is telling you to negotiate or discuss this part. Large companies are much less willing to accept anything like this. However, in your defense, I am pretty sure that negotiating…

Also, as the article describes, it is common to be presented with such agreements when you have little leverage.
Post reply on HN