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

361–370 of 395 posts

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

#361

Post by pm90 »

mcv wrote: post #329
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…

I always negotiate. Not a redlined version, but I make a list of points I have questions about or disagree with, and call them to discuss it. If they won't budge, I look elsewhere. Of course I have the advantage of living in a place where there's plenty of work. If jobs are scarce where you live, that significantly changes the labour market.

Really depends on a case by case basis. In smaller companies or the recently founded megacorps, managers often have a lot of sway since they are responsible for the survival/growth of the company. So if you're a required hire, the manager might ask his/her manager to push your request through.

Much harder to do this in a bureaucratic company that has been around forever since they tend to be pretty inflexible on everything except salary/benefits.

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

#362

Post by loup-vaillant »

maxerickson wrote: post #358
loup-vaillant wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Forget the intended meaning, and focus on facts and consequences. When people have to chose between servitude and death, for whatever reason, whoever chooses servitude is effectively a slave. Good old slavery or modern sweatshop, it doesn't matter: the situation is the same.

Coercion (or lack thereof) is immaterial. And even if it's not, we could argue that there is a coercion of sorts: how come the employers don't offer better choices? Are they even talking to the government to help them offer better choices? Or do they just want to maximise profits, using whatever means necessary? Sure, their responsibility is much more diffuse and less clear cut than that of a slaver who would personally kill unwilling slaves. But from the point of view of the slave/employee, the result is the same: servitude or death.

Note that the sweatshop situation is dire enough that some people do chose death over the sweat shop. Enough of them that some shops have nets around them to prevent their employees from jumping off.

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

#364

Post by eloisant »

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…

It depends of the company, its size in particular.

In a big company the manager wanting to hire you might not have the power to overrule the legal department. In a smaller company however you might get hired by the CTO or CEO himself, the contract has been written by a contractor lawyer and if we wants you he'll change the terms.

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

#365

Post by eloisant »

nraynaud wrote: post #176
algesten wrote: post #43

I had a previous employer trying to stop me from working directly for a client. Only, I had brought in the client, I was the only one working for that client and that client didn't want anything to do with the rest of my employer. I felt morally OK with the situation... Only, my contract did have a noncompete. But then, this is Sweden, and noncompete clauses are almost not enforceable by Swedish law. An employer can'…

In France, the clause has to have a salary included in the non-compete. The former employer pays you for all the time they prevented you from working at your new job. I have never heard of any company asserting a non-compete.

Yes, the only case where I've heard it's done is for fields where a lot of research happen in the private sector.

In this case it may make sense to pay a former employee to do nothing for one year until his knowledge of internal tech is no longer confidential because published or released.

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

#366

Post by Double_a_92 »

m-j-fox wrote: post #268
stale2002 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the state. In California, for example, Non-completes are notoriously unenforceable. I'll sign whatever illegal documents you want me to sign, knowning that they don't matter. You might respond by saying something like "what if they go after you anyway, even though it is unenforceable.". But the problem is that they could just do that anyway, illegal contract or not.

Wasn't this a plot point in Silicon Valley?

Yes it was. "Silicon Valley" is a series about a start up, for anyone that doesn't know.

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

#367

Post by JPKab »

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…

Agreed.

When contracts are redlined in any way, even relatively small companies have procedures in place to require review by the legal counsel. As soon as you introduce lawyers, the delays kick in and nobody is happy.

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

#368

Post by scardine »

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 send the apologetic/firm message explaining my legal advisor rejected some clauses but also send the contract signed: "for your convenience I'm striking the clauses in red and sending it signed (I will be happy to sign a modified contract if you prefer)".

In most jurisdictions outside USA, unlimited non-compete and indemnification clauses are not enforceable anyway. Here in Brazil there are special "labor" courts that are very favorable to the employee - most contractors here will countersue in a labor court if the client try to enforce this kind of clause.

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

#369

Post by ConceptJunkie »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #353
developer2 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

While I would always strive to be cordial and civil about these kinds of things, I don't think the difference in presentation would make any difference if the lawyers are involved. Either modifying the terms is acceptable or it's not.

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

#370

Post by mpfundstein »

eggie5 wrote: post #307
timvp wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

in my personal experience: no lawyer in NL will accept this. At least not for SE jobs where in doubt every other company could be in a similiar field. so don't worry. nevertheless, i wont ever accept such a clause again in any of my contracts
Post reply on HN