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

Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 138 posts

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#51

Post by guelo »

nitwit005 wrote: post #33
_delirium wrote: post #18

The headline kind of has the valence of government activity backwards, though I agree with its policy proposal. Other states don't restrict job-hopping, they just stand by and don't interfere as the free market ends up having the effect of restricting job-hopping. Employees end up signing restrictive employment contracts, and states don't prohibit them from doing so. California has made a conscious decision that the…

Enforcement of contracts is always government intervention. It's a regulation of business, forcing people to stick to their word on certain issues, despite obvious economic reasons not to. Not enforcing some contracts is less intervention, not more.

The free market solution to contract enforcement is something like credit ratings where businesses form a network to enforce penalties. Without government, assuming society would be able to reach those levels of sophistication, it seems probable that capital would still enjoy a strong balance of power over workers to force them into undesirable contracts.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#52

Post by stale2002 »

powera wrote: post #28
stale2002 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever anyone at all asks you where you work, you just be evasive. It doesn't matter about any of those, if just as a policy, whenever anyone at all asks where you work, you don't tell them. Or you just talk in broad strokes/industry without specifically mentioning the name, and if your old employer "finds out" that you have another job, they still can't do anything because they don't know the specific employer.

Are you trolling? How is "never telling anyone where you work out of fear of a lawsuit" the smart way to do anything?

"Where do you work?"

"I'm a web developer, I work at a small startup! I do X, Y, and Z"

Not that hard... especially since no one has ever heard of whatever small company you work at anyway.... It's really not weird.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#54

Post by trevor-e »

I've always wondered why Boston doesn't have a larger tech scene, seeing as we're home to MIT and Harvard (and more great colleges). Seems like many of the big tech companies (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, etc) have been opening offices here lately which is a good start.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#55

Post by ohazi »

grahamburger wrote: post #30
stale2002 wrote: post #11

Here is the thing about non-competes. If you are smart about it, they can be basically impossible to enforce. If you've signed a non-compete and jump ship, you can simply NOT tell your old employer that you got a new job. What are they going to do? Sue you for working at a company they don't know about? There is nothing they can do if you are subtle.

At the last few places I've worked I've found that all I had to do was smile as they handed me the non-compete and tell them that I would take it home, read it and return it signed. Then I'd take it home and trash it. The next time someone asks about it (usually every few months) I say "I'm sorry, I think I lost it, could you email it to me again?" and start the process over. I honestly hate to be that passive aggres…

http://i.imgur.com/AmQeLQW.jpg

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#56

Post by x5n1 »

_delirium wrote: post #18

The headline kind of has the valence of government activity backwards, though I agree with its policy proposal. Other states don't restrict job-hopping, they just stand by and don't interfere as the free market ends up having the effect of restricting job-hopping. Employees end up signing restrictive employment contracts, and states don't prohibit them from doing so. California has made a conscious decision that the…

Job hopping, or as normal people call it staying employed. Governments do need to legislate this because scummy corporations and their management have made it a necessity to do so.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#57

Post by turnip1979 »

skewart wrote: post #39
ww520 wrote: post #10

CA Labor Code section 2870 (you don't give up IP rights to the work you did in your own time) is also vastly important.

This. It's really hard to imagine SV becoming what it is today without this section in the labor laws.

That section has a few exceptions to it.

"... (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or ..."

If you work for a large company in the valley, how does it affect you?I'm curious if anyone has first hand experience with it.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#58

Post by x5n1 »

guelo wrote: post #51
nitwit005 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforcement of contracts is always government intervention. It's a regulation of business, forcing people to stick to their word on certain issues, despite obvious economic reasons not to. Not enforcing some contracts is less intervention, not more.

The free market solution to contract enforcement is something like credit ratings where businesses form a network to enforce penalties. Without government, assuming society would be able to reach those levels of sophistication, it seems probable that capital would still enjoy a strong balance of power over workers to force them into undesirable contracts.

It's fine if corporations can form syndicates to black list workers, workers can form unions to strike, take over factories, etc. If corporations can then buy its own mercenaries so can workers form their own militias to take on rent a cops. And so on. This stupid fantasy of corporate tyrants free to do as they wish ends the same way all tyrannies do, with a revolution.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#59

Post by x5n1 »

oconnor663 wrote: post #43
timroy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contract enforcement is a government activity, though. To enforce a contract, you ask the government (via the courts) to force the other party to give you assets, or not to work somewhere, etc. By the same reasoning, if I sue you for defamation for calling me a lamebrained chucklehead, courts refuse to entertain the suit because the government won't restrict free speech. You're entitled to express your opinion, and t…

Consent on both sides is an important difference. It's not everything, but maybe important enough that it's misleading to talk around it.

Consent under coercion which most work contracts are implicitly, else how are you going to pay for your living expenses, by necessity require government intervention.

Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?

#60

Post by mmanfrin »

x5n1 wrote: post #58
guelo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free market solution to contract enforcement is something like credit ratings where businesses form a network to enforce penalties. Without government, assuming society would be able to reach those levels of sophistication, it seems probable that capital would still enjoy a strong balance of power over workers to force them into undesirable contracts.

It's fine if corporations can form syndicates to black list workers, workers can form unions to strike, take over factories, etc. If corporations can then buy its own mercenaries so can workers form their own militias to take on rent a cops. And so on. This stupid fantasy of corporate tyrants free to do as they wish ends the same way all tyrannies do, with a revolution.

Except that many states have now made laws making unionization very difficult. Also, I'm not sure if you intended, but everything you said describes the early 1900s. The Pinkertons were deployed on many occasions to break up unions, and they acted as a mercenary force against the working class. In the end rights were won, and then the 1980s came and Reaganism heralded the destruction of everything that had been fought for under the guise of being 'business friendly'.
Post reply on HN