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

301–310 of 395 posts

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

#301

Post by stickfigure »

ryandrake wrote: post #293
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…

Neat, but in practice it doesn't work. In my ~20 years experience, I've found that while things like salary and vacation are negotiable, the terms in tech employment contracts are not negotiable. I've tried that cute "strike out the stuff in your employment agreement that you don't agree to" move, and in ALL cases, received a stern note from the corporate legal department a few days later basically saying "Sign it un…

As a contractor, I've seen these before - and more frequently, the indemnification clause. I've always just sent a apologetic but firm email saying that I cannot accept those clauses and they always get removed without any drama or handwringing.

Admittedly I'm on the upper end of the experience scale, but I think there's a lot more wiggle room than most people realize. Also, this is a pretty decent litmus test for an organization - I would avoid companies run by their legal departments.

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

#302

Post by rattray »

stickfigure wrote: post #301
ryandrake wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neat, but in practice it doesn't work. In my ~20 years experience, I've found that while things like salary and vacation are negotiable, the terms in tech employment contracts are not negotiable. I've tried that cute "strike out the stuff in your employment agreement that you don't agree to" move, and in ALL cases, received a stern note from the corporate legal department a few days later basically saying "Sign it un…

As a contractor, I've seen these before - and more frequently, the indemnification clause. I've always just sent a apologetic but firm email saying that I cannot accept those clauses and they always get removed without any drama or handwringing. Admittedly I'm on the upper end of the experience scale, but I think there's a lot more wiggle room than most people realize. Also, this is a pretty decent litmus test for an…

It may be easier for companies to change contractor contracts than full-time employee contracts. The latter is likely to be much more standardized (and companies may generally demand more conformity from FTE's).

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

#303

Post by ryanSrich »

grecy wrote: post #45
watertom wrote: post #12

Health insurance is also part of the rigged labor market. The only reason big companies offer health insurance is because it limits employees's freedom. It would be easy for the Fortune 100 or 200 in unison agree to eliminate health care and provide a higher salaries. It would make the companies more competitive globally and it would free them from a whole lot of other nonsense, but they don't drop healthcare. The re…

> Healthcare is a racket limiting not just healthcare but freedom The fact that Healthcare is tied to employment is downright shocking to virtually all developed countries.

Healthcare is absolutely available to those without employment. Where have you heard otherwise?

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the healthcare burden in the US is from patients without employment. Medicare and Medicaid are some of the largest funds out there.

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

#305

Post by bb611 »

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…

A contract can already account for training costs if an employee leaves - simply have a clause indicating a charge to the employee for the company's cost of training them if they leave before [date when training is paid for by employment]. This is actually very common in US employment contracts, and supported by case law in many states, including CA: http://www.thelelawblog.com/2016/02/articles/new-legislation...

I don't see how non-competes are a desirable alternative, because they're orthogonal to the training costs problem.

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

#306

Post by bb611 »

ben1040 wrote: post #277
stupidhn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Presumably she turned it down?

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

#307

Post by eggie5 »

timvp wrote: post #258
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…

In the Netherlands is not legally enforceable either. You can only enforce not be able to take clients with you to your new employer for a fixed amount of time (e.g. 6 months).

Can you elaborate more on how it's not enforceable in NL or provide some reference? Here is an example of a contract from a tech company in NL w/ a noncompete:

The Employee shall throughout the duration of this employment contract and for a period of one year after termination thereof, not be engaged or involved in any manner, directly or indirectly, whether on the account of the Employee or on the account of third parties, in any enterprise which conducts activities in a field similar to or otherwise competing with that of [COMPANY NAME] and/or its affiliates, nor act, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, whether on his own behalf or for third parties, as an intermediary in relation to such activities. This obligation applies solely to any work activities or involvement of you within the territory of Europe.

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

#308

Post by vivekd »

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…

You are right they are not enforceable in California but they are enforceable in most jurisdictions. California is in the minority.

The issue with requiring your employer to make it only be for the duration of the employment is many companies don't want you to learn about their customers, and methods and trade secrets and then quit to set up a business in the same area . . . which is reasonable. Non compete clauses are allowed in most jurisdiction so long as they are reasonable as to duration (don't last too long after employment) and reasonable as to distance (only cover a limited geographical area)

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

#309

Post by ericssmith »

Speaking from personal experience ... At the time of signing you can see the upside (the offer), but you can't know the downside, which can be quite significant. It's a poor trade-off. Avoid these unless you get some kind of severance for the period of the agreement. Mere employment as "consideration" is a bad deal.

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

#310

Post by tensor »

mikeash wrote: post #163
tensor wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's wrong with it exactly? If I hired a flooring company to lay down some hardwood, I'm not going to tell them "now, don't go doing flooring for my competition for the duration of this job." What's the difference? You're right that it's fair for employers not to hire me if this is my demand. I never meant to imply otherwise. Employers can require all sorts of terrible things. Our recourse is mostly to either negot…

This difference is that in any practical capacity if you are doing this you are almost 100% giving out trade secrets. It's almost impossible not to. Also, your analogy is wrong. It would be that you are a flooring company and one of your workers is working for both you and your competitor, and no doubt using any clever techniques or processes that you've come up with to help out your competitor.

The software industry is big enough that you can definitely find secondary employment at a company that isn't direct competitor. That you want to apparently game multiple parties for your own gain seems like a pretty terrible thing from the employer side of the fence.

Once the company I work for had an employee from a direct competitor apply for a job with us immediately after quitting. They were pretty forthcoming with offering us intel on the competitor, presumably within their contract. We still turned them down because if someone has that little respect for a working relationship with their previous employer you can be sure that they will do the same to you.

People here often like to paint the picture of the people versus evil corporations. In reality, a job is something where you should have mutual respect between employees and employers. To me and many others, this is part of being a professional.

Post reply on HN