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

351–360 of 395 posts

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

#351

Post by ArtDev »

closeparen wrote: post #144
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…

Ah, but this is the nature of salary employment. There is no clock, so there is no such thing as "off the clock."

Hourly contractors should be exempt.

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

#352

Post by loup-vaillant »

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…

The choice between death and servitude is exactly how slavery worked. That choice was often used as a justification, even: whoever values life more than freedom doesn't really deserve to be human any more.

Make no mistake, slavery also requires consent: the slave can always kill himself at the very least.

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

#353

Post by TeMPOraL »

developer2 wrote: post #341
stickfigure wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> I've always just sent a apologetic but firm email saying that I cannot accept those clauses and they always get removed Hold on, everyone! My parent(^) said something simple , yet it is powerful . I don't believe s/he realized they were providing such insightful information, but the little gem that makes a huge difference is in that short quote. While many companies may not be flexible with their contracts, I love…

I was under the impression that for laywers and people dealing with contracts, redlining is a standard practice of sorts, like sending patch diffs in Open Source software development.

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

#354

Post by NoGravitas »

Confusion wrote: post #300
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…

Corporate legal departements try to pull the same thing with B2B contracts, but in our experience almost anything can be changed if you stand your ground.

B2B contracts are different, though, because they are effectively between equals, in a way employment contracts are not.

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

#355

Post by loup-vaillant »

supremesaboteur wrote: post #337
ue_ wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Take that away and there is no good reason for taking the risk I'm not arguing for businesses, I'm arguing for the destruction of capitalism. I hope that businesses currently around fail. >This is already allowed in a capitalist society Any organisation which attempts to do so will fail very quickly, due to the fact that (i) workers must be kept employed, not disposed of when machinery that does a better job becomes…

> Any organisation which attempts to do so will fail very quickly, due to the fact that (i) workers must be kept employed, not disposed of when machinery that does a better job becomes available (ii) workers would have to be paid much higher than in those firms that do not operate as co-operatives. These two facts mean that such an organisation cannot compete. A good analysis is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=…

> What about the value derived from the risk taken by the enterpreneur ?

The fact the entrepreneur was able to take a risk at all is remarkable by itself: without starting capital (often inherited), you simply cannot take any risk to begin with.

Want to reward risk-taking? Think how this very thinking perpetuates (perhaps even increases) inequality.

> What about the value derived from the work done by the enterpreneur ?

That work has value and should be factored in the final value of the products, then rewarded.

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

#356

Post by hajile »

djsumdog wrote: post #26
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…

I agree entirely. Student debt and healthcare have evolved to be a means of keeping people trapped in industry. After dealing with health care in other countries, I wrote a post on what I found returning to America: http://fightthefuture.org/article/returning-to-america-and-t... America wants you to work. Work work work work work. Our European neighbours can save up and take a few months off every few years and not h…

The US gov already pays about $5,500 per person per year. That's about a thousand more per year than Canada. The statistically average household (2.58 people) will pay an average of $27,000 EVERY SINGLE YEAR on average for healthcare ($10.3K/person/yr).

If Americans already pay more to the gov for healthcare than countries with universal healthcare, why doesn't it exist in America?

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

#357

Post by dschndstryr »

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…

If you're just a code monkey this comparison would be correct.

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

#358

Post by maxerickson »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #352
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…

The choice between death and servitude is exactly how slavery worked. That choice was often used as a justification, even: whoever values life more than freedom doesn't really deserve to be human any more. Make no mistake, slavery also requires consent: the slave can always kill himself at the very least.

Your point about consent is inane, you are ignoring their intended meaning, a meaning that is pretty well clear enough (agreement without coercion).

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

#359

Post by mikeash »

tensor wrote: post #310
mikeash wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think "mutual respect" means that, if a company doesn't want me giving out trade secrets, then they write a clause into the contract that says "don't give away our trade secrets, thanks." Writing in a broad restriction about how I can spend my non-working hours, just because they're afraid I might do something unethical (and probably illegal), isn't respectful.

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

#360

Post by Confusion »

NoGravitas wrote: post #354
Confusion wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate legal departements try to pull the same thing with B2B contracts, but in our experience almost anything can be changed if you stand your ground.

B2B contracts are different, though, because they are effectively between equals, in a way employment contracts are not.

The legal department usually tries to tell us differently and gives the same kinds of arguments as they would give for the 'non-standard' employment contract. "You are only a small company and every other company accepts these conditions". "Only manager X of small department Y wants to do business with you: we won't change our conditions just for them". "The contract is only for few$, we can't do specials for that". But in the end the wishes of someone in the business are more important and conditions can be changed to satisfy both parties.
Post reply on HN