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

51–60 of 395 posts

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

#51

Post by joeblow9999 »

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…

There is the small issue of whether or not your personal integrity allows you to sign an agreement you do not intend to abide, regardless of the legality.

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

#52

Post by howard941 »

brightball wrote: post #42

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.

Insofar as Florida (Floriduh), a "right to work" state is concerned, this is sadly not correct. Most non-competes are enforceable here :( IAAL but IANYL.

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

#53

Post by _red »

acdha wrote: post #47
_red wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 avera…

>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?

Its true they did have that contract. However it was never enforced and once news of it broke they dropped it.

It would like never been enforced since its clearly unlawful. Any legal contract must have 5 parts: (a) Offer, (b) Consideration, (c) Term, (d) Good Faith, and (e) Acceptance.

The "Good Faith" provision means that no part of any contract is either for one part or the other. The contract is implied to be "equal" in all parts. Such a tact of getting low-paid workers to sign non-competes clearly violates this, thus why it was basically unenforceable.

Now, just because some company tried to write a dumb contract, should we make all contracts illegal?

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

#54

Post by CalChris »

In the US, California, North Dakota and Oklahoma are the exceptions. NCCs are legal elsewhere.

http://www.beckreedriden.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/nonc...

Even in CA, trade secrets have an exception.

http://www.weil.com/articles/the-trade-secrets-exception-to-...

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

#55

Post by grecy »

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…

>I wrote a post on what I found returning to America:

http://fightthefuture.org/article/returning-to-america-and-t...

I just read your post and my mind boggled at a $200 premium, $6,000 deductible and something about co-pay.

I am 35 and don't even understand that last term, because I should not have to.

Healthcare should be about health, not money.

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

#56

Post by kstenerud »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #50
djsumdog wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's strange... I spent 6 years living and working in America and I never met anyone who loved work, with the exception of some founders, perhaps.

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

#57

Post by lotharbot »

mikeash wrote: post #30
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…

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…

> "When I'm off the clock, my time is my own, up to and including doing paid work for anyone else I want."

At least one of the reasons for a non-compete clause is to make sure you're not doing stuff on the clock for your employer, and then getting double-paid by a competitor for essentially the same end result but without the competitor having to pay for the whole process of getting that result. Like, if they're paying you to spend 40 hours a week learning about the key problems in their industry and designing and implementing solutions, and then a competitor hires you for 10 hours a week to re-implement those solutions (not paying for the learning/designing phases). So the competitor is getting the benefit of work you're doing that in some sense should belong to your main employer.

There might be something better than a non-compete clause for that sort of scenario, I just don't know what it is.

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

#58

Post by vkou »

_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.

> 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?

Because any analysis of contracts that does not take into account the relative power of the parties entering them is an incredibly naive one.

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

#59

Post by AlphaSite »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #50
djsumdog wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Unemployment figures are people who aren't employed but are searching for work, so I'm not sure it says exactly what you're trying to say.

People who don't want to work, don't show up in unemployment.

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

#60

Post by etjossem »

lotharbot wrote: post #57
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…

> "When I'm off the clock, my time is my own, up to and including doing paid work for anyone else I want." At least one of the reasons for a non-compete clause is to make sure you're not doing stuff on the clock for your employer, and then getting double-paid by a competitor for essentially the same end result but without the competitor having to pay for the whole process of getting that result. Like, if they're payi…

Generally this is covered under a confidentiality agreement, which forbids the disclosure of the company's intellectual property. The designs you mention in your example would be considered work-for-hire, and (depending on how specific/proprietary they were) if you sold them to a competitor on the sly, you might be in violation of such an agreement.

So no, a noncompete - even one that only applies to the time you are employed by the company - isn't typically necessary.

Post reply on HN