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

FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 189 posts

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#51

Post by slymon99 »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #4

We really need general regulations on non-competes. Bare minimum, it should be required that a company pay you a full salary if they want to block you from seeking employment elsewhere with your skills. If a company really cares that much about stopping competitors from taking advantage of your skillset, they need to be willing to pay up.

As long as "full salary" is defined as your total compensation. Financial firms set base salaries low relative to total compensation (bonus can be 200-500%+ base) so that your TC drops dramatically if you leave. Sometimes the next job will buy you out, but with 18 month non competes being common, sometimes you are just screwed.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#52

Post by tcoff91 »

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #45
RhysU wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The NY Department of Labor also doesn't handle complaints if you're salaried above a certain threshold. Source?

https://dol.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/03/ls223.2.pd... Labor Standards cannot accept every claim. Labor Standards will not accept claims if you: - Worked as an executive, administrative, or professional employee and earned over $900 per week

Wow that is some BS

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#53

Post by RhysU »

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #45
RhysU wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The NY Department of Labor also doesn't handle complaints if you're salaried above a certain threshold. Source?

https://dol.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/03/ls223.2.pd... Labor Standards cannot accept every claim. Labor Standards will not accept claims if you: - Worked as an executive, administrative, or professional employee and earned over $900 per week

Oof. Thank you.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#54

Post by topkai22 »

I worked for (and my wife still works for) a small company that provided a boutique set of engineering services. They had a non compete that was very narrowly tailored and called out by name the competitors that you couldn’t go work for directly (6 months or a year), all of which were also small companies.

That sort of non-compete that seems reasonable to me- very specific, time limited, and only for people with actual trade knowledge.

A good test is the number of openings a prohibition covers. The non-compete I signed covered maybe 30 openings nationwide in a good year, and zero in my local metro area.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#55

Post by kabdib »

About 20 years ago I joined a large company in California, where non-compete clauses are essentially disallowed.

A few years later, I moved to the company's offices in Washington State, where non-competes are allowed. Before the move I emailed HR and asked if I needed to sign the WA state employment agreement (with that non-compete clause) and they said "no". I saved that email.

Forward a decade, I resigned to work for a competitor.

That exit interview was fun. :-)

[I was working on completely different stuff at the new company. I do take NDAs and trade secrets seriously].

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#56

Post by umeshunni »

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #45
RhysU wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The NY Department of Labor also doesn't handle complaints if you're salaried above a certain threshold. Source?

https://dol.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/03/ls223.2.pd... Labor Standards cannot accept every claim. Labor Standards will not accept claims if you: - Worked as an executive, administrative, or professional employee and earned over $900 per week

You know that limit was introduced because "most of the benefits of the labor standards board were going to the rich" or some BS like that.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#58

Post by RajT88 »

josephg wrote: post #43
jjallen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a previous employer know what a former employee is telling their current employer about what they know from their former employer? Not saying anything is right or wrong, just that when something is illegal doesn't mean it prevents that crime.

> How would a previous employer know what a former employee is telling their current employer... They don't. What I learned while working for your company isn't your company's property any more. Good ideas almost always eventually spread in our industry. And I think thats a good thing for software as a whole! You can protect your data, and your code. But you can't really stop someone quitting a job at your company, w…

> What I learned while working for your company isn't your company's property any more. Good ideas almost always eventually spread in our industry.

You are only thinking about code. Imagine knowing all the dirty secrets about how your company screwed customers. I have seen employment contracts forbidding working for a customer, in addition to competitors and in addition to an NDA.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#59

Post by technothrasher »

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #28

I wish federal law would just abolish non-competes completely. When I gave advanced notice to Tudor Investment that I would be quitting they threatened to fire me with cause so that they could still enforce the non-compete without paying me in accordance with NY state law. And they followed through with their threat, sending me a letter telling me I was being terminated with cause the day I officially quit. To make t…

My spouse's previous employer humiliated them at their job repeatedly, and then went for blood and sued under the non-compete when they took a job elsewhere to stop the abuse. It was totally vindictive and there was really nothing we could do, as they were a multi-billion dollar company and signaled they'd be happy to just keep spending money, even if they were losing, until they bankrupted us. $30,000 in legal fees later (which didn't even get us to discovery), we had to settle, giving them basically everything they wanted, including not allowing my spouse to work at all for three months, and then complete veto power over any job they took for the next year (including even flipping burgers). Seemed completely illegal for them to do that, but they just said, "fine, lets keep the lawsuit going then." We tried calling the state to see if there was anything they could do and were met with, "Huh, that sounds sucky. Bye."

I'd love to shame the company as you're doing, but we're legally bound by the settlement not to say anything about them but how great and wonderful they are as a company.

Re: FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

#60

Post by umeshunni »

themitigating wrote: post #25

[flagged]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_...

Someone should compile a listicle of the "10 worst California propositions" or something like that

Post reply on HN