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

241–250 of 395 posts

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

#241

Post by siegel »

linkregister wrote: post #84
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 hear this advice about contracts of adhesion all the time, "just red line out the parts you don't like, just like in that scene in 50 Shades of Gray." Who in the software industry still gets offers like that? Everyone I know gets a DocuSign PDF they sign digitally. There's no opportunity to alter the document. There is basically no non-confrontational way to do this. If a software developer has a competing offer, s…

There is a non-confrontational way to do this. Download the PDF, figure out what is making you uncomfortable (or hire a lawyer to review), and just send a list of concerns. Make them matter of fact, but not accusatory.

This is assertive. But it's not "confrontational." And if your employer withdraws the offer because of it, it's a huge red flag and you're lucky. But I've never seen an offer revoked for asking questions.

If you have more leverage, then you can be more "confrontational." You might want to mark up the agreement (or have a lawyer do it) and send back. That may seem a bit more forward, but you can certainly do it.

Please don't think you can't question what your employer puts in front of you. Maybe they won't revise the agreement for you, but it's worth trying if you have concerns.

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

#242

Post by siegel »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #198
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…

1) to prevent you from working somewhere else at the same time, which can create all sorts of conflicts of interest, or 2) because it'll keep you from looking for a new job, and they think you're too naive to argue. Actually there is a third reason: An employee leaves and takes proprietary tech to a competitor. The standard answer is: Well that's what an NDA/Confidentiality clause is for so you don't need to worry ab…

I sympathize with what you're saying. But if this were truly such a problem, wouldn't you expect jurisdictions that enforce non-competes to have a more robust startup ecosystem than jurisdictions that don't?

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

#243

Post by concede_pluto »

probably_wrong wrote: post #185
linkregister wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this advice about contracts of adhesion all the time, "just red line out the parts you don't like, just like in that scene in 50 Shades of Gray." Who in the software industry still gets offers like that? Everyone I know gets a DocuSign PDF they sign digitally. There's no opportunity to alter the document. There is basically no non-confrontational way to do this. If a software developer has a competing offer, s…

Quoting Herb Cohen's "You can negotiate anything" about signing leases under unfavorable terms: "In rare cases where a person still hesitated to sign his or her name, I might add 'The legal people won't approve of any changes'. Keep in mind that the legal people didn't even know they wouldn't approve of any changes. Nevertheless, the phrase worked like a charm, since 'legal people' projects, on a wide screen, a power…

How can there be a valid meeting of the minds if you're expecting me not to notice my words have been tampered with?

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

#244

Post by [deleted] »

siegel wrote: post #241
linkregister wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this advice about contracts of adhesion all the time, "just red line out the parts you don't like, just like in that scene in 50 Shades of Gray." Who in the software industry still gets offers like that? Everyone I know gets a DocuSign PDF they sign digitally. There's no opportunity to alter the document. There is basically no non-confrontational way to do this. If a software developer has a competing offer, s…

There is a non-confrontational way to do this. Download the PDF, figure out what is making you uncomfortable (or hire a lawyer to review), and just send a list of concerns. Make them matter of fact, but not accusatory. This is assertive. But it's not "confrontational." And if your employer withdraws the offer because of it, it's a huge red flag and you're lucky. But I've never seen an offer revoked for asking questio…

[deleted]

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

#245

Post by Dickie_Sticks »

flamedoge wrote: post #11
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.

I think it's fine. Dirtier the connotation, the greater the company must feel to fight against it to keep you.

The connotation is that hiring employees away from other companies is a bad thing. It's only a bad thing if you're an employer. It's great for labor.

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

#246

Post by dsacco »

mirimir wrote: post #210
bcjordan wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you sue the companies in question if there is any evidence they're doing that?

Sure, if you have the resources. In my case, it was far more feasible to change careers. Edit: I did speak with a few attorneys. But they all wanted cash up front. And told me that I had little chance of success.

Can you give an example of an industry like this?

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

#247

Post by sroussey »

deaddodo wrote: post #218
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.

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.

Beyond that, not just the clause is unenforceable, it invalidates the whole contract.

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

#248

Post by juiyout »

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.

Same here in Taiwan. Court has ruled more than once that non-complete cannot be applied to any employee who is not top-level executive.

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

#249

Post by smallnamespace »

Spooky23 wrote: post #238
smallnamespace wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Another model I've seen is that everyone gets a blanket noncompete, but when the employee leaves, the business and legal folks get together and decide whether they really want to pay for the person to be unemployed.

Usually it depends on the exact new position, whether it's at a direct competitor, how senior the person was, etc.

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

#250

Post by _n_b_ »

saganus wrote: post #206
coredog64 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government provides the cooks and household staff, but the president is responsible for paying for the food.

Really? Do you have a link for this? This sounds very interesting and sort of funny. Not really sure how it works on other presidential houses, but still sounds amusing since it will probably require rules and guidelines on what exactly to deduct from the president's paycheck, no? What if the president invites someone over, in a sort-of-unofficial way but not really, do you get deducted as well? or maybe not because…

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/politics/presidential-debt/

I read about this in a book called The Residence: Inside the Private World of the White House, which was decently interesting.

Post reply on HN