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

311–320 of 395 posts

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

#311

Post by Macha »

edanm wrote: post #276
Macha wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rathe…

> 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?

Because the best solution from an economic position can involve screwing over people in more vulnerable positions?

From TFA we have manual labourers and QC workers in a factory being forced into non-competes. These are not people with much power in the free market.

> 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?

I mean, if they sucked at following the methods to the point you let them go, surely their attempt at bringing them to a new company would likely backfire

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

#312

Post by trowawee »

dsacco wrote: post #246
mirimir wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Software engineering? Like, two years ago? How are you on HN, but missed this? https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti-po...

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

#313

Post by danny_taco »

As someone that was made to sign a confidentiality agreement under duress and unfair pressure months after joining the company, with stipulations that basically say ANY work I do, regardless of industry or during the weekend, belong to the company. Even after I no longer work there up to one year, and ONLY if I bother to sign the attached clause that says I no longer work there.

I'm so glad that tomorrow I'll be handing in my two weeks notice especially at a critical time for the company. I'm also the most senior developer that everyone else comes to with questions regarding how the system works and how it can be improved. The original developers left for similar reasons.

What I'm trying to say is, if you think, as a business owner or employer that you can act against the best interests of your employees then you'll end up paying dearly for it one way or another.

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

#314

Post by danny_taco »

brightball wrote: post #42

Fwiw, my understanding is that in right to work states a noncompete CANNOT prevent you from earning a living in your field. The clauses have to be defined as very specific, time limited and reasonable otherwise they don't hold up under legal scrutiny. Stuff like, not being able to take current customers to a competing business within a mile for a period of 1 year is considered reasonable.

I think you are confusing right to work with at will employment.

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

#315

Post by jimsug »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #227
deaddodo wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your new employer doesn't have to fight anything. Non-executive non-competes are specifically disallowed by the CA gov't. It's up to your previous employer to prove you were an executive (upper management/c-suite) and sue you, not vice versa.

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?

You don't necessarily need to hire a lawyer, but I've always found this to be one of the pains of the American costs system.

On the other hand, a court can't really order you to work for the company, so even if by some miracle they were successful, it'd come down to a matter of damages, and those would be difficult to prove even if you went to work for a direct competitor.

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

#316

Post by supremesaboteur »

ue_ wrote: post #294
supremesaboteur wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the employer created a famine to help recruit cheap labour, I agree, there is no consent

Why is whether the employer created it or not relevant? What matters is the fact that the employee is forced to work, or to starve. In the times of widespread slavery, a slave owner didn't create the system of slavery, yet nobody would disagree that the slave owner is exploiting the slave, for the slave has no choice but to be a slave, either to this particular owner or to any other owner. It is not a consensual rela…

Someone has to work to produce the goods and services we need

In slavery the owner is creating the conditions of oppression. In free market the employer is paying the wages which could potentially lift the employee out of poverty

Equating all hardships to slavery is pure folly

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

#317

Post by dsacco »

trowawee wrote: post #312
dsacco wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example of an industry like this?

Software engineering? Like, two years ago? How are you on HN, but missed this? https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti-po...

I'm aware of that. I was asking about a smaller industry with more specialized skills where that would be commonplace.

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

#318

Post by ue_ »

supremesaboteur wrote: post #316
ue_ wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is whether the employer created it or not relevant? What matters is the fact that the employee is forced to work, or to starve. In the times of widespread slavery, a slave owner didn't create the system of slavery, yet nobody would disagree that the slave owner is exploiting the slave, for the slave has no choice but to be a slave, either to this particular owner or to any other owner. It is not a consensual rela…

Someone has to work to produce the goods and services we need In slavery the owner is creating the conditions of oppression. In free market the employer is paying the wages which could potentially lift the employee out of poverty Equating all hardships to slavery is pure folly

> Someone has to work to produce the goods and services we need

I agree, but they don't have to work for someone else who extracts surplus. They can organise themselves and work themselves, voluntarily. They then own the products they make and decide how and if to distribute them.

>In free market the employer is paying the wages which could potentially lift the employee out of poverty

In slavery, the slave owner is providing the housing and food which could potentially lift the slave out of being in a state without food or shelter.

The owner and employer both perpetuate the system of oppression, this much is a fact. If there were no capitalists, there would be capitalism. If there were no slave owners, there would be no slavery. If there were no lords, there would be no feudalism.

You cannot escape the fact that the capitalist is taking advantage of the lack of choice and lack of capital by virtue of accident of birth and the property system which the capitalist defends and supports.

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

#319

Post by afterburner »

rhapsodic wrote: post #286
afterburner wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What if you need that job to make ends meet?

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

#320

Post by solidsnack9000 »

rhapsodic wrote: post #288
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hope I answered your original question, with regards to the parallel to feudalism.

In a different legal climate it might not play out that way; but in the current one it does.

Post reply on HN