Noncompete Clauses: Signing Away the Right to Get a New Job • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by trowawee » Sun, May 14, 2017, 4:00 AM UTC

AnkhMorporkian wrote: post #129

3pt14159 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm 100% with you, an email is all it usually takes, but most people don't realize that. When your life and blood depends on competing with the people you work with, it's very simple to say "no." But when you're just getting a start and think that "this contract is life or death"? It's a non-starter, you would never think of negotiating it. It makes more sense for them to simply be illegal than negotiable for that ve…

Huh...I actually did this when I got out of a developer bootcamp in 2014/2015. I come from a family of lawyers; redlining a contract is second nature. Data point of one, but I think it's more a cultural norm - there's a strong norm in American society, in particular, against negotiating. Funny how well that works out for the people who control the capital and don't have any issues ignoring that norm. They should be illegal, but more people should start more conversations with a negotiating mindset as well.

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

#232

Post by siegel » Sun, May 14, 2017, 4:02 AM UTC

brightball wrote: post #111

howard941 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insofar as Florida (Floriduh), a "right to work" state is concerned, this is sadly not correct. Most non-competes are enforceable here :( IAAL but IANYL.

Not a lawyer, but the ones I have spoken to here in SC have told me that's how it worked.

Sadly, "right to work" laws have absolutely nothing to do with non-compete enforceability.

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

#233

Post by siegel » Sun, May 14, 2017, 4:04 AM UTC

stupidhn wrote: post #25

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.

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.

Actually, even in California, in the limited instances in which a non-compete is enforceable, being fired has no bearing on the non-compete's enforceability.

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

#234

Post by burntrelish1273 » Sun, May 14, 2017, 4:04 AM UTC

General rules-of-thumb (IANAL):

- Sign the minimum of documents

- Don't provide full, personally-identifying information unless it's absolutely required

- Negotiate terms of boilerplate agreements if they're too unreasonable / don't apply

- Don't sign a binding arbitration agreement, BA is a worthless/corrupt system that nearly always favors the employer. [0]

- For CA-headquartered companies, refuse to sign NCAs because it creates legal liabilities (ie, could they involuntarily transfer an employee to another state and then fire them to make an NCA apply?)

0. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitra...

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

#235

Post by goatherders » Sun, May 14, 2017, 4:12 AM UTC

krisoft wrote: post #167

goatherders wrote: post #48

I've been sued twice over non compete language. The good news is they are reasonably hard to enforce because most judges will ultimately agree that people have a right to change employers. The bad news is it can cost a lot of money to get to the point where the judge says that.

So you signed a second non-compete after being burned once?

I didn't get burned either time. See: I had an agreement for someone else to pay my legal bills.

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

#236

Post by siegel » Sun, May 14, 2017, 4:14 AM UTC

_red wrote: post #40

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.

Agreed with the silly use of the name 'poaching'. But how exactly is the state preventing two people voluntarily entering into a contract a good thing? Its pointless anyway, a first year law student will just rewrite as non-circumvent + no-solicit + NDA agreements.

This is just not the way contract interpretation and enforcement works. It never has.

The law has always recognized public policy considerations that sometimes outweigh the benefit of enforcing a particular contract.

I'd be shocked if you didn't agree with some of examples of such contracts. For example, if A contracts with B for B to murder C, A cannot sue B for breaching that contract.

California decided that the public policy of fostering freedom to practice one's profession outweighs the interest in enforcing contractual non-compete provisions. You may not agree.

But, in the end, this is all about public policy goals. Framing the question as about the "state preventing two people voluntarily entering into a contract" isn't quite correct. The question really is whether the state should get itself involved in ENFORCING a particular agreement. Generally, the state will do so because a functioning economy is dependent upon enforceable contracts. But that is just one public policy interest to be weighed against others in particular instances.

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

#237

Post by siegel » Sun, May 14, 2017, 4:17 AM UTC

goatherders wrote: post #48

I've been sued twice over non compete language. The good news is they are reasonably hard to enforce because most judges will ultimately agree that people have a right to change employers. The bad news is it can cost a lot of money to get to the point where the judge says that.

Yes, it costs a lot of money to fight a lawsuit your former employee may bring against you.

But you might not ever get there. In my experience, nasty employers will directly contact and threaten the employee's new employer, which can result in the employee being fired (or maybe never hired in the first place).

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

#238

Post by Spooky23 » Sun, May 14, 2017, 4:18 AM UTC

smallnamespace wrote: post #199

etjossem wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally this is covered under a confidentiality agreement, which forbids the disclosure of the company's intellectual property. The designs you mention in your example would be considered work-for-hire, and (depending on how specific/proprietary they were) if you sold them to a competitor on the sly, you might be in violation of such an agreement. So no, a noncompete - even one that only applies to the time you are…

Noncompetes are very common in finance because employees will gain access to proprietary knowledge (trading algorithms, signals, clients, strategies) that by definition have very high short-term (months to a year) value to a competitor. Confidentiality doesn't work that well because proving that a former employee disclosed proprietary information is very difficult. However, the ex-employee is generally paid at full s…

Usually when they really give a shit about the non-compete in finance, there's a term contract.

My friend did commercial banking. He had a one year non-compete, but it was geographically scoped, and he also had multi-year contracts that protected him from layoff. They needed to release him for specific causes, buy out the contract, release his contractual obligations, or some combo.

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

#239

Post by vacri » Sun, May 14, 2017, 4:18 AM UTC

Buttons840 wrote: post #228

3pt14159 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "it's a standard contract"

For my current gig as a linux sysadmin I was hired a couple of years ago, and handed a standard employee contract. There was a clause in there that I agreed not to install free software on my work computer. The clause was just there for tech naives who might install any old crap, but it was funny for a linux professional. There was zero trouble amending the 'standard contract' to get rid of that clause. :)

In any case, you can bet your booties that the higher up the food chain you go, the less people get a 'standard' contract and the more it's tailored individually to them.

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

#240

Post by Spooky23 » Sun, May 14, 2017, 4:24 AM UTC

Cerium wrote: post #153

mikeash wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donald Trump gets paid more than enough to be considered to be on the clock 24/7, and it's generally understood that this is the nature of that job.

Well, as President Donald Trump gets paid a base salary of 400k. As another poster pointed out the difference between 40 hours / week, and 24/7 is 4.2x. That would mean that "more than enough" for a normal salary is $95k.

Elected official's job status is defined by statute. Money is irrelevant.

This is often a matter of serious debate. For example, in New York legislators are considered part time, so they are permitted to operate businesses or be employed while in office. This creates an appearance (at a minimum) of conflict of interest in many scenarios. Full time employees of government generally need permission by the appointing authority to do meaningful outside business.

This applies to any government employee. A janitor on government payroll generally needs permission to work for a company that cleans offices at night.