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

Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 218 posts

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#31

Post by ilikehurdles »

tranchms wrote: post #22
sbjustin wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the average person doesn't have the money to pay a lawyer to fight off a company - especially the ones with teams of lawyers who need something to do.

If you’re the “average person”, you have nothing to worry about. Trust me. Non-competes really only matter for people with exceptional knowledge of something. From a business standpoint, the legal resources to build a case against a single “average person” who signs a generic non-compete are not a good investment. But like I said, it’s a judgement call. Anyone in the possession of that exceptional knowledge should be…

If the average person has nothing to worry about then why do all average people have to sign non-competes if they want the job? The fact is that companies see a benefit in threatening all new hires with non-competes, and like I said elsewhere, the only people with enough pull to negotiate out of a non-compete are those highly specialized non-average people who are the least likely to sign the boilerplate contract, who the company will still want to hire when they push back with specific demands.

So who are the non-competes really for then?

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#32

Post by anarazel »

tranchms wrote: post #22
sbjustin wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the average person doesn't have the money to pay a lawyer to fight off a company - especially the ones with teams of lawyers who need something to do.

If you’re the “average person”, you have nothing to worry about. Trust me. Non-competes really only matter for people with exceptional knowledge of something. From a business standpoint, the legal resources to build a case against a single “average person” who signs a generic non-compete are not a good investment. But like I said, it’s a judgement call. Anyone in the possession of that exceptional knowledge should be…

Uh, I know of several low-mid level techies where their companies played hardball around their non-competes.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#33

Post by twblalock »

currymj wrote: post #29
twblalock wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't find any historical reason noncompetes were banned. I assume it happened because California was a new state and people coming there to work did not want to get stuck with the first employer they happened to end up with. There also would not have been a heavily established business lobby with enough power to prevent a ban, as there was on the east coast. California was writing a new legal code, so there was no…

It wasn't a conscious choice -- they were drafting their laws from a set of model statutes called the Field Code and simply didn't even think about changing the provision. Interestingly, this also happened in North Dakota. https://www.noncompetereport.com/2013/01/north-dakota-non-co...

Excellent, this is great information that is difficult to find!

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#34

Post by oppositelock »

everdev wrote: post #19
twblalock wrote: post #3

Banning noncompete agreements is something California has been doing right since 1872 when they were first banned. Another thing California does right is refusing to honor noncompete agreements from other states.

You can still enter into a legally binding non-compete in California resulting from the acquisition of a company or IP.

This is true, but they must compensate you for the time you aren't allowed to compete. No such thing here in CA as a free non-compete.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#35

Post by paxys »

twblalock wrote: post #3

Banning noncompete agreements is something California has been doing right since 1872 when they were first banned. Another thing California does right is refusing to honor noncompete agreements from other states.

And I'd argue that this is one of the biggest reasons why the area was able to evolve from a couple of semiconductor companies into the world's most valuable business ecosystem.

Most other states are too beholden to a few big companies and don't see how following suit will only help them over the long term.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#36

Post by cryptonector »

twblalock wrote: post #7
harry8 wrote: post #6

noncompetes work even when illegal and unenforceable. Why, because you or many of your potential employers don't want the massive cost and emotional toll of being sued - even if you win you lose. That's all google, facebook, microsoft, etc. you know the companies that we KNOW are guilty of operating a cartel to drive down wages. That's all they need. This baseless illegal, legally unenforcable contract provision mean…

> Cue the apologists working for the big silicon valley players... Why? Silicon Valley is in California where noncompetes are illegal. Silicon Valley companies don't use them. I've been in Silicon Valley my entire career and I have never seen one or heard of anyone who has.

Did you read the rest of the post you're responding to? Did I miss something? I thought u/adyidsinga explained it quite well.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#37

Post by alistairSH »

twblalock wrote: post #7
harry8 wrote: post #6

noncompetes work even when illegal and unenforceable. Why, because you or many of your potential employers don't want the massive cost and emotional toll of being sued - even if you win you lose. That's all google, facebook, microsoft, etc. you know the companies that we KNOW are guilty of operating a cartel to drive down wages. That's all they need. This baseless illegal, legally unenforcable contract provision mean…

> Cue the apologists working for the big silicon valley players... Why? Silicon Valley is in California where noncompetes are illegal. Silicon Valley companies don't use them. I've been in Silicon Valley my entire career and I have never seen one or heard of anyone who has.

All of those companies extend outside of California. Googling “google noncompete” turned up several examples. Here’s one... https://gawker.com/378444/did-you-sign-googles-noncompete-go...

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#38

Post by dunpeal »

paxys wrote: post #35
twblalock wrote: post #3

Banning noncompete agreements is something California has been doing right since 1872 when they were first banned. Another thing California does right is refusing to honor noncompete agreements from other states.

And I'd argue that this is one of the biggest reasons why the area was able to evolve from a couple of semiconductor companies into the world's most valuable business ecosystem. Most other states are too beholden to a few big companies and don't see how following suit will only help them over the long term.

There's research that credits the fact that SV is in California and not, for example, near Cambridge MA, to the fact that non-competes aren't enforceable in California.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#39

Post by harry8 »

harry8 wrote: post #8
twblalock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cue the apologists working for the big silicon valley players... Why? Silicon Valley is in California where noncompetes are illegal. Silicon Valley companies don't use them. I've been in Silicon Valley my entire career and I have never seen one or heard of anyone who has.

I don't follow, which part did you fail to understand?

The response has now been edited and explains more fully as a result of that. Just FYI. Charitable, yes. We should all be more so.

Re: Too Many Workers Are Trapped by Non-Competes

#40

Post by pnw_hazor »

twblalock wrote: post #7
harry8 wrote: post #6

noncompetes work even when illegal and unenforceable. Why, because you or many of your potential employers don't want the massive cost and emotional toll of being sued - even if you win you lose. That's all google, facebook, microsoft, etc. you know the companies that we KNOW are guilty of operating a cartel to drive down wages. That's all they need. This baseless illegal, legally unenforcable contract provision mean…

> Cue the apologists working for the big silicon valley players... Why? Silicon Valley is in California where noncompetes are illegal. Silicon Valley companies don't use them. I've been in Silicon Valley my entire career and I have never seen one or heard of anyone who has.

SV companies operating in Washington State have some of the worst non-competes.
Post reply on HN