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

41–50 of 395 posts

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

#41

Post by dsacco »

logicallee wrote: post #33
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…

Why do you have to fix an unenforceable clause at all? On moral principle? Are they gonna tell you over some barbeque, "Hey by the way Bill you know and I know that we can't TECHNICALLY enforce the clause preventing you from working in this industry for two years after leaving your position with us but we both know that it was very shitty of you to take a job in this same sector." Who's going to say that with a strai…

I think the comment might be inclusive of noncompetes in territories other than California, which are more often than not encorceable.

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

#42

Post by brightball »

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.

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

#43

Post by algesten »

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't stop an employee to take another position. To be a valid clause, an employer must offer the same payment the new position would have had whilst riding out the non-work period, and no one does that.

A strongly worded letter from my lawyer sorted it. Never heard from them again.

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

#44

Post by blazespin »

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…

This seems a bit irrational. If there was universal health care than Big companies could just pay their employees more in lieu of health care.

The advantage of being at a small company is you have greater growth opportunity. The advantage of being at a big company is greater steady state benefits and salaries.

It's been shown that statistically, it makes more sense to work at a big company from the perspective of expected value. But not a very exciting way to live :)

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

#45

Post by grecy »

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.

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

#46

Post by monksy »

ben1040 wrote: post #22
monksy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the employee was terminated the non-compete should be terminated as well.

I had a friend who got RIF'd from a software company, and their offboarding paperwork included a 1 year noncompete that tied their severance as the consideration. Essentially, "we don't want you working here, but we also don't want you working anywhere else, either."

I got RIF'd and they included the paperwork signed at offer time for the non-compete. I didn't sign it thinking they would try to force the non-compete after the employment was terminated by them.

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

#47

Post by acdha »

_red wrote: post #40
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #8

Using "poaching" to describe a company hiring someone from another company, needs to die. Companies do not own people. It is strictly a business relationship. I think that the US as a whole should follow California in outlawing non-competes. It definitely has been shown to be workable.

Agreed with the silly use of the name 'poaching'. But how exactly is the state preventing two people voluntarily entering into a contract a good thing? Its pointless anyway, a first year law student will just rewrite as non-circumvent + no-solicit + NDA agreements.

The problem comes from the market disparity: most employees need the job and have limited bargaining power or legal representation while the company has a whole legal team representing their interests. Similarly, the company has a lot more data points on terms and compensation than the prospective worker.

As a simple example, the Jimmy John's sandwich chain had a no-compete for their employees. Do you think the average person making subs is as comfortable walking away from a job as the company is telling them the terms aren't negotiable?

My favorite fix would simply to be requiring full compensation for the entire term. Intel would pay an architect to sit on the beach rather than work for AMD but nobody would think of trying that for the average developer.

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

#48

Post by goatherders »

I've been sued twice over non compete language. The good news is they are reasonably hard to enforce because most judges will ultimately agree that people have a right to change employers. The bad news is it can cost a lot of money to get to the point where the judge says that.

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

#49

Post by brians »

stupidhn wrote: post #25
vostok wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not excellent because they stop paying you if they terminate the noncompete, but you also can't look for a new job until the very end of your noncompete period.

I'd love to know where you live that an employer can fire you and expect you to honor a non compete. The second they stop paying you your obligations end. No judge in the land will prevent you from being unable to earn a living.

Most of the USA, including Massachusetts (but not California).

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

#50

Post by bmmayer1 »

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…

To be fair, Americans work. Work work work work[1]. Americans love work and elect politicians who love work.

Europeans hate work. Hate hate hate hate[2]. They hate work and elect politicians who also hate work.

That major (cultural? economic? social? political?) difference between American and European attitudes towards work might explain these statistics:

American vs EU unemployment rate: 4.7% vs 8.2% American vs EU youth unemployment rate: 9.4% vs 17.3% American vs EU GDP per capita: $56k vs $35k

And so on.

Point being, things are only the way they are because we want them to be that way--and elect politicians who do as well.

That said, I agree with the core premise: corporate-sponsored healthcare is a lousy drag on the economy...

[1] http://www.projecttimeoff.com/news/press-releases/americans-... [2] https://www.etui.org/Topics/Trade-union-renewal-and-mobilisa...

Post reply on HN