Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 514 posts

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#451

Post by Spivak »

r00fus wrote: post #320
CJefferson wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem there is people often leave one job for a job which might pay 2x, 5x, or even more. How about if you get another job offer, your original employer has to either "buy you out" of the new job offer, or you allowed to take it?

This sounds great (as a worker). I could imagine it poses some risk of gaming the system (ie, have your friends startup fake hire you at 2/5x and use that to bypass noncompete or get a huge raise) - but then the company's out is to not enforce their noncompete (which is essentially what CA enforces) so I think it's a nice "velvet handcuffs" option for employers.

“Easy, just commit fraud.”

It’s like people forget that we have a functioning legal system where a human can see through the bs.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#452

Post by ghaff »

lsllc wrote: post #447
ghaff wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Garden leave isn't a panacea. For example, in Massachusetts, there's a relatively recent requirement that employers have to pay at least half of an ex-employee's salary for up to a 12 month non-compete coverage. Better than nothing I guess. And it does put some skin in the game for the employer. But while that might look like a good deal for some people who are in a position to just travel, start a project of some so…

But in MA, the "reform" doesn't apply to existing employment contracts, only ones signed after it went into effect. The MA law was watered down after some lobbying by large Hopkinton MA based company(s) that had taken A.I.M. at non-compete reform in the state. In fact the reforms that did pass, I think only did after of a certain acquisition that occurred involving said company(s). https://www.telegram.com/story/busi…

Yeah. EMC was one of the big blockers. I had to sign upon being acquired in 1999 although it didn't affect me (and was actually reasonably scoped). And I left after a few months.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#453

Post by acheron »

mcv wrote: post #391
asveikau wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the biggest problems I see with non competes is that "competition" can be subjective, especially in a world of large employers with extremely diversified business interests. Eg. If you move from one big tech co to another, you may be technically moving to a competitor, but the subject matter of your work could be unrelated. This is probably true of other industries too.

My current client had a non-compete in their contract specifying I would not be allowed to work for one of their customers, or something like that. This client is one of the big four accountancy firms; their customers can really include everyone, and I have no way to tell who is or isn't their customer. And my work doesn't even include any contact with their customers! What they really wanted was that I wouldn't do f…

That sounds like it might be an audit restriction. Those places have very strict rules separating who they do accounting or consulting for vs who they audit, for obvious reasons. So it might be that they’re saying you can’t do work for them in one capacity and then go work for somebody they audit.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#454

Post by kaushikc »

Natsu wrote: post #318
eclipsetheworld wrote: post #27

In Germany we have non-competes, however, the employer has to continue paying the ex-employee (a part of) their salary for the non-compete to have any effect.

To be honest, this always made the most sense to me. If they want a non-compete, fine, but it should have money attached because it has value they should pay for.

They just want free sacrifices for nothing or for firing you.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#455

Post by nerpderp82 »

DennisP wrote: post #406
steelframe wrote: post #332

When I was interviewing last year, I cut off an interview loop with a company primarily because I don't reside in California and their NDA was, "Anything you say, anything we say, forever." Since I was also interviewing with one of their direct competitors that I really preferred, I didn't want to put myself anywhere near a legal situation where they might try to mess things up for my career. They freaked out when I…

I quit a job I'd been at for well over a decade, because the company's new owner was making everyone sign noncompete, non-disparagement, and intellectual property contracts. They would own everything I invented while employed with them, even if I did it at home on my own time, if in their opinion it had anything to do with their business. I checked with a lawyer first, who said it was probably all enforceable in my s…

This is what Google claims when you work for them.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#456

Post by User23 »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #429
b112 wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their response? "Oh, that's just all standard legal stuff, don't worry about it." I'm a Canuck, so centuries of legal, common law separation here... But if someone misrepresents what a contract is, and even more so applies pressure to sign, it's meaningless. My understanding is that this goes back to "make your mark" and lower levels of literacy, and in modern times, that legalese is gibberish to many, thus misrepres…

Shouldn't this invalidate basically every software EULA/TOS?

Most EULAs are basically meaningless in the USA. Once you have a legally acquired copy of the program the Copyright Act specifically and explicitly gives you the right to back it up and load it for execution. You don't need to be licensed a legal right you already have.

You can also print it off, cross out the shit you don't consent to, initial the changes, sign, and mail it certified to whatever their address of record is. I'm not a lawyer, but at that point my understanding is it's their job to say no we don't agree, just like it was your job to say no I don't agree.

California rental agreements are a particularly odious example. Liquidated damages (AKA late fees) are completely illegal in California. In fact it's illegal to even present a lease that has a LD clause to be signed! Sometimes I wish I were more into small claims swashbuckling, because I bet you could have a dozen small claims for various properties going against Equity Residential in any California city.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#457

Post by pyuser583 »

DennisP wrote: post #406
steelframe wrote: post #332

When I was interviewing last year, I cut off an interview loop with a company primarily because I don't reside in California and their NDA was, "Anything you say, anything we say, forever." Since I was also interviewing with one of their direct competitors that I really preferred, I didn't want to put myself anywhere near a legal situation where they might try to mess things up for my career. They freaked out when I…

I quit a job I'd been at for well over a decade, because the company's new owner was making everyone sign noncompete, non-disparagement, and intellectual property contracts. They would own everything I invented while employed with them, even if I did it at home on my own time, if in their opinion it had anything to do with their business. I checked with a lawyer first, who said it was probably all enforceable in my s…

I suspect this did why Satoshi Nakomoto is a ghost.

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#458

Post by amatecha »

humanistbot wrote: post #403
steelframe wrote: post #332

When I was interviewing last year, I cut off an interview loop with a company primarily because I don't reside in California and their NDA was, "Anything you say, anything we say, forever." Since I was also interviewing with one of their direct competitors that I really preferred, I didn't want to put myself anywhere near a legal situation where they might try to mess things up for my career. They freaked out when I…

The thing that makes me so angry is how lightly so many people treat these legally binding contracts. I showed up to a meetup at some tech company's offices. After putting in my name, I was shown a contract on a small tablet and was expected to click next and sign with my finger. I have normal vision and couldn't read it without putting it right in front of my eyeball. I don't sign anything without reading. I asked i…

Oh yeah, it drives people crazy but I actually sit there and read the entirety of contracts I sign (though I not only read very fast but I'm also able to easily skim along where warranted). It took a bit longer than expected to buy a used car a few years back. In that case the car dealer seemed pretty impressed I was actually reading what I was signing. Most people respond to it like "uhhhhh..." hahaha

Like, honestly, I'm not going to subject myself to some legal encumbrance because of peer pressure. I got a bunch of pressure at a former employer where they wanted everyone to sign these new employment agreements and it took months because I wasn't getting sufficient answers to questions I had. I should have taken it as a warning sign of where they were headed based on how stuff proceeded there later on, but I was pretty young back then. :P

Re: U.S. moves to bar noncompete agreements in labor contracts

#459

Post by wpietri »

golemotron wrote: post #322
wpietri wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think those are all reasons a company might want it. But asking the government to force people to not work requires reasons why it's good for society, not just the company. In the first case, you're talking about a company that wants to pay below-market salaries. Why should that be the employee's problem? In the second, there's a case for carrots to make the acquired team stay, like the stock options you mention. B…

> But asking the government to force people to not work requires reasons why it's good for society, not just the company. Nobody is forced not to work. That's pure hyperbole.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious from context that I was talking about forcing people not to work at particular jobs. Which is what a noncompete is. You say you won't do X, and if you do X they ask the government to force you to stop doing X. If you refuse to comply long enough, men with guns will come and drag you away (contempt of court, and if you keep going, resisting arrest). So yeah, force. "Come and see the violence inherent in the system" and all that.
Post reply on HN