Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 242 posts

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#231

Post by cerberusss »

goatherders wrote: post #105

I've had non competes at my last 3 jobs (all in web hosting) The first, a darling "startup" adored by investors and customers alike sued me twice, sent a process server to my door at 6am on a saturday and tried to call me in for a deposition the afternoon of Christmas eve. They regularly win company culture awards and receive undeserved praise for being a place people can grow. I had a chance to grow from IC to VP an…

> I've had non competes at my last 3 jobs

Wouldn't it be more precise to say: "I've signed non competes" instead of having them?

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#232

Post by distances »

foepys wrote: post #168
masklinn wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 60%? Forget that. Why should anyone give up their right to work for a little over half of their market value? They don't. They very specifically can not ask an employee to "give up their right to work", only in the US does that shit happen. German law (and most european law around NCC in various fashion) requires that the NCC ne limited in time and not have "unreasonable clauses" e.g. can't prevent working in the f…

To add to that, it's very rare that companies deny employees to work on side projects (or rather claim all work an employee did in their free time for themselves). That's typically done by American companies.

Yes, I don't know how anyone would agree on such a clause. Hobby projects are none of the employer's business.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#233

Post by captainperl »

dmurray wrote: post #77
munk-a wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, if complying with the non-compete would introduce a hardship there is usually a way to just ignore it entirely. So, let's say you're a database specialist picked up to tune someone's DB, part of the contract you sign (probably unwisely) states that you can't work tuning DBs for the next 6 months after signing. If, after two weeks at the job, layoffs happen and you're let go then it's likely that a judge would d…

> there's a thousandth of a percent chance that some company is going to try to ruin your life over it, and if they try there's another thousandth of a percent chance they'll succeed. But if they do, it is _terrible_. Perhaps you're exaggerating for effect, or perhaps you really don't understand the probabilities involved. But this is many orders of magnitude less likely than you getting killed by a meteor strike. E.…

> this is many orders of magnitude less likely than you getting killed by a meteor strike.

No, a thousandth of a percent = 1/100,000, which is more likely than the meteor or murder scenarios presented.

Also, if "some company" turns out to be Amazon or EMC, then it's not only higher than that, but certainty in some cases.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#234

Post by vonmoltke »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #230
vonmoltke wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused about the distinction. How can a worker be forced to join a union in the absence of an agreement between the company and the union to only hire union workers? If you are thinking of "closed shops", companies where the union has a security agreement with the company and the union is free to deny membership to a person (thereby denying them employment), those were deemed illegal everywhere under US federal…

> I'm confused about the distinction. How can a worker be forced to join a union in the absence of an agreement between the company and the union to only hire union workers? A worker can't be forced to join a union even in the presence of such an agreement. The company simply agreed not to hire them if they don't join.

I feel like you are playing semantics here. "Forced to join a union" in this discussion is in the context of "in order to get a job at Company X". Of course this worker is free to forego employment at Company X if they don't like the terms of the employment. However, one of those terms forces the worker to join a particular union.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this semantic distinction could be used to justify eliminating just about any worker protection currently on the books.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#235

Post by darkarmani »

lovich wrote: post #227
jeffdavis wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am making a practical argument and you are making an ethical/moral argument of it. But for your argument to be complete I think you need at least some example of someone doing something unethical or wrong because of the policy. The policy exists today so hypothetical arguments fall a bit flat. To illistrate my point, consider that it is legal (as far as I can tell -- not a lawyer) to walk around in California with…

There are people on non competes that are not being compensated with the full salary they would have been getting. To me that is unethical. It is not a hypothetical situation, unless you are trying to claim that no company anywhere is using a non compete, in which case I just need to pull up the associated paperwork for pretty much every offer letter I've gotten. Alternatively I can go and poll just my social circle…

> There are people on non competes that are not being compensated with the full salary they would have been getting. To me that is unethical.

They are also making that money while doing nothing.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#236

Post by samstave »

nraynaud wrote: post #138
samstave wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, tying your labor force to the land should be no basis for a free economy! Imagine, just shackling your primary economic labor force to an arbitrary plot of land and demanding taxes and work of them?! How ghastly. Next thing you know, you'll be claiming right to their innovations in the advancement of farming technology. Ill have you know that I shall not be sharing MY designs for soil improvement through the ad…

Who cares, the lord will be gone at the next reversal of alliance.

If you haven't already watched it, I would expect you would like the spoof on "Vikings" called "Norsemen" on Netflix.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#237

Post by deogeo »

cperciva wrote: post #228
deogeo wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure you can - just invite the union to the negotiating table. Any contract can be changed if all parties agree. Or even simpler - ask for a pay raise in the exact amount of the union dues.

Asking for a pay raise to cover the union dues is a red herring -- unions do far more than merely collect dues from their members.

As do employers, so I fail to see your point.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#238

Post by TallGuyShort »

lordnacho wrote: post #149
TallGuyShort wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some cases an employee might be able to build up a base of loyal customers more easily with a larger firm than they could alone, leave and take much of that business with them, and enjoy the continued productivity with much higher margins. The resources of the larger firm then become a stepping stone to the loss of their own business. I know of one case (in which I am actually mostly sympathetic to the individual…

If the customers prefer a new business, that suggests non-competes are damaging, just like the article says. We can all see why the company wants the clause, but it's equally clear that it's in society's interest to not allow it.

There's an actual cost the company is trying to avoid though, and that actual cost will have to go somewhere eventually. Either it will actually result in companies having higher overhead to maintain their business, or the employees who used to have non-competes having to pay for some of the firm's business generation one way or another.

Reminder that the question was "what are good reasons...", which suggests that not everyone knows why the company wants them, unless you assume all companies are inherently evil which is not reasonable. They invest in their brand. Employees get the benefit of that to help establish their own brand. And then they can take that brand elsewhere to the detriment of the original investor.

Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages

#240

Post by lovich »

darkarmani wrote: post #235
lovich wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people on non competes that are not being compensated with the full salary they would have been getting. To me that is unethical. It is not a hypothetical situation, unless you are trying to claim that no company anywhere is using a non compete, in which case I just need to pull up the associated paperwork for pretty much every offer letter I've gotten. Alternatively I can go and poll just my social circle…

> There are people on non competes that are not being compensated with the full salary they would have been getting. To me that is unethical. They are also making that money while doing nothing.

They are not making money while doing nothing. They are making money by not using their knowledge, so that their previous employer can prevent other entrants into their market from benefiting from said employees skills.
Post reply on HN