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

Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

casetext.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 179 posts

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#61

Post by michaelochurch »

gtrubetskoy wrote: post #24

As I understand it, non-competes are very hard to enforce and are more of an intimidation tactic than anything else. You cannot be prevented from earning a living the only way you know how given the demand for your skills. If you're bound by a non-compete and the only (or the best) job available is with the competition, you shouldn't be afraid to take it, and the courts will side with you if someone goes after you (w…

Non-competes aren't there to be enforced, but to make the person stinky to future employers. A decent company will cover legal expenses and, in the extreme outlier case, judgments-- and an indecent one will fire you, but you probably won't get sued in either case. The effect of a non-compete on a star hire is relatively small, but if you're an entry-level engineer, the difference between $85,000 per year and $85,000 per year plus theoretically unbounded legal risk is huge.

Non-competes, non-solicits, and (except in a severance) non-disparagement clauses are shitty practices that deserve to die in a taint fire.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#62

Post by [deleted] »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #35
benjohnson wrote: post #19

As an employer, I'm quite fine with this - as the law still allows for an agreement to be made about soliciting clients. If relationship with an employee and my company sours, all I really care about is that poor relationship not transferring to the relationship between my company and my clients. Artificially locking ourselves into to a bad employer/employee relationship does nobody any good.

Your problem is when someone you have a good relationship with is seduced by something hotter and sexier.

[deleted]

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#63

Post by Sukotto »

If your employee is going to leave anyway, your best course of action is to encourage them.

Perhaps something along the lines of: "We're really going to miss you, but it's clear that this is a great opportunity for you. When it's time for you to move on from that role give me a call... I'd love to chat with you about roles back here that would be a good fit with that additional experience under your belt"

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#64

Post by aaronbrethorst »

tracker1 wrote: post #53
wheaties wrote: post #3

Wish NY did the same. In NY they get to own all your ideas both at work and "off the clock."

I cross/line out any portion of employment agreements that say such things... I've never had any push back about it.

I wish I could upvote this another couple hundred times. I was having a conversation with another tech industry person a couple months ago who's been out of the workforce for a bit, and is thinking about getting back in but is hesitant because they don't want to work ridiculous hours.

I suggested that they could make this a point of negotiation in any offer that's made, which could take the form of the company offering them a four day work week, etc.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#65

Post by vinhboy »

tibbon wrote: post #49

A company I worked for recently had non-competes and non-solicit clauses. A new employees was negotiating their contract, and I told them to push back against the NC/CS clauses. I spoke with the management and asked why they needed them, "to prevent problems" they said. I pointed out that they didn't have the non-competes for their employees in California and asked if they had problems there. They weren't aware of an…

because lawyers...

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#66

Post by bmelton »

tracker1 wrote: post #52
colanderman wrote: post #12

"The law clearly violates corporate equal protection under the 14th Amendment and I am just waiting for a client to ask me to challenge the law." Couldn't have picked a more biased source ;)

I think we need to establish a constitutional amendment that explicitly states that non-living entities (companies, corporations, etc) are not legally allowed to express opinions in so far as they donate to PACs or directly to campaigns. Also, that the congress or the states may limit the rights that non-living entities have beyond what an individual who works for or owns a non-living entity has. "Corporate Personhoo…

On the contrary, if corporations didn't have personhood, we could not sue them when they did wrong, or enter into contracts with them.

Personhood has its own challenges for sure, but it originates more to protect people than it does to advantage corporations.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#67

Post by angrow »

tomasien wrote: post #47
gtrubetskoy wrote: post #24

As I understand it, non-competes are very hard to enforce and are more of an intimidation tactic than anything else. You cannot be prevented from earning a living the only way you know how given the demand for your skills. If you're bound by a non-compete and the only (or the best) job available is with the competition, you shouldn't be afraid to take it, and the courts will side with you if someone goes after you (w…

They're hard to enforce, but I can tell you from experience (current) that it doesn't matter - their existence and enforceability in ANY way in a given state is harmful in a big way. California has basically done the right thing and decided to ignore them, but my home state only has rendered them ALMOST entirely unenforceable. That almost leaves a lot of room for the casual observer to judge - and it stings.

I hope that things continue to improve for you.

There are still edge cases in California too, or at least one: if you leave partnership (not employment) with an LLC registered in _another_ state, non-competes still apply. I know this from experience with H1, the Holacracy-making company. I don't blame them for having a non-compete, and I wasn't interested in founding a competitor or working for one of their clients, but it was weird to think those actions could make me liable.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#68

Post by wwweston »

tracker1 wrote: post #53
wheaties wrote: post #3

Wish NY did the same. In NY they get to own all your ideas both at work and "off the clock."

I cross/line out any portion of employment agreements that say such things... I've never had any push back about it.

While I make this a habit as well, it should be noted it's not a panacea.

I have in at least one case been told in no uncertain terms there would be no employment without signing the agreement precisely as written... and unfortunately, after not getting paid in a timely manner from an earlier gig, I needed the job more than they needed me.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#69

Post by ridgeguy »

WilliamSt wrote: post #17
CognitiveLens wrote: post #11

In unrelated news, Hawaii's High-Tech industry collapses. I think this policy is awesome and should be universal, but it seems a little crazy to enact it unilaterally - if a company can choose which state to operate in, Hawaii is going to lose out to all the others that allow unfair (IMO) employer protections.

Aren't non-compete clauses banned in California?

Pretty much, as long as you're an employee.

There may be exceptions if you're the owner of a business that you sell, or a member of a partnership that's dissolved, or part of an LLC that's being dissolved.

Useful info on US noncompete laws:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Exceptions_...

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#70

Post by austenallred »

gtrubetskoy wrote: post #24

As I understand it, non-competes are very hard to enforce and are more of an intimidation tactic than anything else. You cannot be prevented from earning a living the only way you know how given the demand for your skills. If you're bound by a non-compete and the only (or the best) job available is with the competition, you shouldn't be afraid to take it, and the courts will side with you if someone goes after you (w…

Yet if you hire someone under a non compete in many states the court battle will cost you 50-100k. Until they're blatantly not legal they're still a huge pain.
Post reply on HN