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

271–280 of 395 posts

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

#271

Post by Gibbon1 »

rhapsodic wrote: post #117
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #65

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.

>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,…

You realize of course then that surfs (and their descendants) became surfs via an oath of bandage.

Of course you do.

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

#272

Post by justinjlynn »

ygra wrote: post #269
sroussey wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Isn't there usually a clause at the end stating that even if some parts are unenforceable, the rest of the contract still holds?

Yes, typically, there is a 'severability' clause that encodes that.

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

#273

Post by supremesaboteur »

ue_ wrote: post #222
kobeya wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 particul…

Disagree. Slavery requires lack of consent. If you were taken by force and sold to a master who is entitled to your labour by law, that is an oppressive situation to be in and it must be abolished. This is not the same thing as someone voluntarily exchanging their brains or brawns for a limited period of time for money.

> An extreme example of this logic utterly failing is in those developing nations with sweatshops

Poverty means making hard choices. If your choices are :

1. Starve to death

2. Work in a sweatshop

Most people would pick 'Work in a sweatshop'. Nobody who has the choice to work in a sweatshop or be a doctor is working in a sweatshop

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

#274

Post by crdoconnor »

School-Cotton wrote: post #183
crdoconnor wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's an unreasonable contract and they refuse to make the contract reasonable upon request then having the company walk away probably means you dodged a bullet.

Is starving to death really better than signing a shitty contract? It's not very easy for most people to find a new job.

For software developers there's usually another job out there although I agree in principle - if you're on the low end of the wage ladder you're somewhat screwed.

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

#275

Post by kenshi »

An alternative point of view, even for those entering the industry: just don't sign a contract with a non-compete clause.

At some point in your career you are going to have to negotiate over terms in your contract. Best to get practice in as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

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

#276

Post by edanm »

Macha wrote: post #270
edanm wrote: post #267

I'd just like to point out that there is a case to be made for noncompetes, they're not just a terrible thing that companies do because they can. I recommend reading "The Case for Non-Competes" by David Henderson ( http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/11/the_case_for_no.... ). Here's a relevant quote (in which the author is actually quoting Aaron McNay): " Both employers and employees would like to be able to tra…

In the example you gave, you could make an argument like that but it'd still only feel any way fair iff: * It started from the start of the contract/end of the initial training. * It was for a period much shorter than 2 years * It was voided if the employer terminated the contract

Why would it only feel fair based on some "arbitrary" rules you intuitively feel are right? Why not let people negotiate based on their personal situations, and let the market eventually sort out what combination works best?

After all, for high enough salaries, I'd probably agree to very onerous terms.

Specfically about your list, I think the reason the period doesn't usually start from the end of training, but rather the end of employment, is that it is assumed you continue to have access to more training / more confidential information, even if you work for a company for longer than the few months of training. And I certainly hope most people work in a job in which they continue to grow/learn.

As for voiding if the contract if the employee is fired, why make that a condition? Wouldn't that just mean the bar for hiring new employees would be even higher, because if they don't work out, you're both wasting lots of investment, and also running the risk of them taking your methods to a new company?

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

#277

Post by ben1040 »

stupidhn wrote: post #28
ben1040 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a friend who got RIF'd from a software company, and their offboarding paperwork included a 1 year noncompete that tied their severance as the consideration. Essentially, "we don't want you working here, but we also don't want you working anywhere else, either."

If the severance falls outside of the mandatory amount by law, then this is reasonable. They are paying you not to work for a competitor for a time.

It's reasonable if the severance is equal to the pay you'd get over the term of the non-compete. They don't want you working for a competitor for a year? That's fine, if they pay you a year's salary.

However, in my friend's case, she was given the 1-year noncompete in exchange for 4 weeks' pay.

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

#278

Post by lrem »

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.

It becomes problematic when"competitor" is "anyone making or using software". As my country does not ban non-compete clauses, the most technical thing I can safely do off the clock is carpentry.

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

#279

Post by lrem »

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.

It becomes problematic when"competitor" is "anyone making or using software". As my country does not ban non-compete clauses, the most technical thing I can safely do off the clock is carpentry.

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

#280

Post by palunon »

_v7gu wrote: post #261
pfarnsworth wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It'd be thrown out immediately anyway, due to having no legal basis (at least in the mainland European civil law systems)

California doesn't have a mainland European civil law system.
Post reply on HN