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

281–290 of 395 posts

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

#281

Post by emodendroket »

lmkg wrote: post #99
postfacto wrote: post #78

If you're going to violate a noncompete, don't tell anyone you're going to work for a competitor. Keep yourself as small of a target as possible for your former competitor's legal team. - When you quit, tell your now former employer that you're quitting to pursue something other than what was your established industry. Your (made up) lifelong dream of starting your own microbrew brand, Macrome supply business, winery…

Your suggestion is that if your employer tries to pull this unethical behavior against you, is that you should lie, run, hide, and sacrifice your own personal relationships? There are better ways of dealing with this than acting like what you did was criminal and laying low for a year until it blows over.

Such as what? Going to court?

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

#283

Post by rhapsodic »

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.

>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.

I didn't provide a "definition" of a free society.

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

#284

Post by ajnin »

supremesaboteur wrote: post #273
ue_ wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If your choices are : 1. Starve to death 2. Work in a sweatshop

Then it's not a choice. Therefore there can be no consent, you are not made to work by force but by threat of starvation or homelessness, it is an oppressive situation even if these people don't have literal chains at their feet.

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

#285

Post by rhapsodic »

rocqua wrote: post #265
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,…

No, the problem is that sometimes, people are not able to refuse a work agreement. There are plenty of cases where a potential employee essentially has a choice between signing and starving. If the employer knows this, that is no longer an agreement between consenting adults. If I put a gun to your head, and you then 'consent' to an agreement where you give me money, and I don't shoot you, is that a hallmark of free…

>No, the problem is that sometimes, people are not able to refuse a work agreement.

That statement has absolutely no basis in reality. It gets trotted out time and time again, however.

>There are plenty of cases where a potential employee essentially has a choice between signing and starving.

Again, that is pure BS. No one starves in the US. The number one health problem is obesity.

>If I put a gun to your head, and you then 'consent' to an agreement where you give me money, and I don't shoot you, is that a hallmark of free society?

If you don't know the difference between an armed robbery and a freely entered agreement, I thinking I'm wasting my time arguing with you.

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

#286

Post by rhapsodic »

afterburner wrote: post #155
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,…

Do you know what a power imbalance is? You think having your life controlled by a corporation is a sign of a free society?

>Do you know what a power imbalance is?

Yes.

>You think having your life controlled by a corporation is a sign of a free society?

When it comes to me signing a contract that some corporation would like me to sign, I have complete, inviolable power to NOT sign it. The power over my signature is 100% mine.

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

#287

Post by rocqua »

rhapsodic wrote: post #285
rocqua wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the problem is that sometimes, people are not able to refuse a work agreement. There are plenty of cases where a potential employee essentially has a choice between signing and starving. If the employer knows this, that is no longer an agreement between consenting adults. If I put a gun to your head, and you then 'consent' to an agreement where you give me money, and I don't shoot you, is that a hallmark of free…

>No, the problem is that sometimes, people are not able to refuse a work agreement. That statement has absolutely no basis in reality. It gets trotted out time and time again, however. >There are plenty of cases where a potential employee essentially has a choice between signing and starving. Again, that is pure BS. No one starves in the US. The number one health problem is obesity. >If I put a gun to your head, and…

My point is that consent is a sliding scale. Armed robbery is at an extreme point on that scale.

For a less extreme point, consider your manager asking something of you in a personal capacity. There is clearly a problematic imbalance of power there. For a slightly worse example, consider sexual harassment. This is not o.k. due to the power imbalance.

In general, consent given under duress isn't valid. It seems facetious to say there is a sharp line where duress ends and 'fair hardship' starts.

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

#288

Post by rhapsodic »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #223
rhapsodic wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. May…

>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.

Unfortunately, the Democratic party in the US has fought tooth-and-nail against "loser pays" tort reform for decades.

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

#289

Post by [deleted] »

ajnin wrote: post #284
supremesaboteur wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If your choices are : 1. Starve to death 2. Work in a sweatshop Then it's not a choice. Therefore there can be no consent, you are not made to work by force but by threat of starvation or homelessness, it is an oppressive situation even if these people don't have literal chains at their feet.

[deleted]

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

#290

Post by err4nt »

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 feel like 'poaching' makes sense, I see it used when the recruiters are 'hunting' not in the open market of job seekers, but only 'hunting' within the flocks of their competitors. That's like hunting an animal you're not allowed to hunt = poaching.

I think the place where you're doing the recruiting (another company's staff versus the public) is what makes hiring a person from another company poaching in one case, while the same person being recruited from the general job market wouldn't be.

Post reply on HN