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

The case for banning non-competes

slowboring.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 338 posts

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#91

Post by wolverine876 »

trentnix wrote: post #62
mabbo wrote: post #23

There are two kinds of non-competes, and both have problems. First, there's the really nasty ones saying "If you ever work here, you can't work for any competitor for X years", and they're clearly abusing of employees, labor, etc. I hope there is a straight up ban on that. The second kind is "You can't compete with us while you work here". And that is a much more complex beast. Obviously, if I work as a developer mak…

But my employer does everything. There is no field that my employer is not involved in, somehow. You can guess who they are, probably, or just read my profile. And they say "You cannot do anything that competes with anything we do". Which is everything. Want to make a Sudoku app? That's a game, we do games. Want to do some open source ML library work? We do ML, you can't do ML outside of work (I asked legal that one)…

> They implored me to trust that they had "never sued anyone" and "have no intentions to", and I think they honestly believe that. But then why have the non-compete at all?

Exactly. 'That's great; we can resolve that issue easily. Let's just skip the non-compete - you're not using it anyway and I'm not comfortable with it.'

EDIT: A non-lawyer's suggestion (talk to a lawyer before you do this): Skip signing or edit documents (cross out and initial sections you don't like, add words - and initial each change) and then sign and send it back. Don't say a thing; leave it to them to bring it up - most people won't bother disputing it with you.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#92

Post by rich_sasha »

masklinn wrote: post #48
mabbo wrote: post #23

There are two kinds of non-competes, and both have problems. First, there's the really nasty ones saying "If you ever work here, you can't work for any competitor for X years", and they're clearly abusing of employees, labor, etc. I hope there is a straight up ban on that. The second kind is "You can't compete with us while you work here". And that is a much more complex beast. Obviously, if I work as a developer mak…

> There are two kinds of non-competes, and both have problems. There are more kinds of non-competes. Neither of the kinds you're listing is blanket-legal anywhere in Europe, as far as I can tell, but there are still NCC/NCAs. Generally speaking, in Europe, NCC/NCAs must: * show a reasonable business interest, mere competition does not ever qualify * be geographically limited * be temporally limited (rarely more than…

As another comment said, and I can confirm from personal experience, just the fact that you need these to enforce a non-compete is no panacea. There is usually enough probable cause, or whatever legalese name it has, to take an employee to court and cause them enormous havoc and expense (UK anyway, but the rest of your post reads consistent with UK laws).

Additionally, if you think you are small fry for a firm to sue you, not necessarily. Enforcement of non-competes is just as much aimed at deterring others from trying as it is at affecting you personally, if you spread the cost for the company over the 10-20 employees who are deterred, it suddenly looks cheap.

Even if against the odds of going against a large corporation with deep pockets you eke out a win in court, you are almost certainly not getting all your money back, and none of your time and stress either.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#93

Post by IncRnd »

> Joe Biden says he’s going to ask the Federal Trade Commission to try to ban non-compete agreements

In the United States the Executive branch can't write their own law, even if it is to ban non-compete agreements.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#95

Post by Hitgub »

mabbo wrote: post #23

There are two kinds of non-competes, and both have problems. First, there's the really nasty ones saying "If you ever work here, you can't work for any competitor for X years", and they're clearly abusing of employees, labor, etc. I hope there is a straight up ban on that. The second kind is "You can't compete with us while you work here". And that is a much more complex beast. Obviously, if I work as a developer mak…

> they ask "do you have a github account?". No, I've been highly motivated not to.

I release all my projects under a fake name and fake Github for this reason. Ethically dubious, but I still get to contribute code and I have something to send a prospective employer.

When they ask why it's pseudonymous, I say "non-competes" and they nod in understanding.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#96

Post by lostcolony »

brightball wrote: post #64
Teknoman117 wrote: post #33

I lived in Alabama for 4 years or so and at least at the time (I have no idea if it's changed since I left), their non-compete situation was garbage. They were valid and enforceable even if you got laid off or fired. One of my friends' mother got laid off in the 2008 financial crisis from Bellsouth (or AT&T, I don't recall if the (re)merger was finished yet). She was told she couldn't work for any other telecom in th…

In right to work states, non-competes can’t prevent you from earning a living.

De jure, maybe, but de facto it most certainly can, as the OP's anecdote attests to.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#97

Post by Meph504 »

gibba999 wrote: post #25
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #5

My state has severely limited non-compete agreements to the point that they’re only narrowly enforceable, if at all. That didn’t stop one of my previous employers from using non-compete scare tactics against employees. Many of us left in a large exodus when benefits and bonuses were cut and management made a number of other bad decisions. The company responded by sending remaining employees an e-mail with a list of c…

My experience is that (1) Most threats like this aren't legally credible (2) That doesn't stop employers from filing (and losing, if not settled) lawsuits. For most employees, a lost lawsuit means you lose 2 years of your life, get PTSD, and go bankrupt. You might recover legal fees after you've lost the house. Yay! If you've got a megabuck, you're okay. If you live paycheck to paycheck, you're SOL. If you're a high-…

> re: grad students versus elite universities, under NDA.

I think it is important to not conflate NDA and non-compete, NDAs have a validate place, and are likely what should be used instead of non-competes in most situations.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#98

Post by throwawaygh »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #82
Scarblac wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it would be tough to argue that your at-home trading app code is completely uninfluenced by ideas you have at work. And that your at-work trading app code would be influenced by ideas you have at home. You're a craftsman making trading apps, some for an employer, some for yourself, it's what you do. It's strange for an employer to be allowed to force you to stop doing the others without compensating you for it.

> And that your at-work trading app code would be influenced by ideas you have at home. Umm, but you are also taking money from your employer so you can't say that in reverse.

Umm, but your employer is also taking time from you so you definitely can say that in reverse.

In fact, your employer is taking your a fragment of your life, and human life is worth more than currency, so actually, it's really quite inappropriate if your employer was found accidentally using ideas that you had while you were in the shower at home when they weren't paying you. (internet you-can't-hear-my-voice disclaimer: this is obviously hyperbole meant to really drive home the point.)

I'm generally a fan of market-based methods of structuring economic activity, but this sort of implicit assertion that the owner of capital is just obviously more important than the owner of labor really puts the "ism" is Capitalism.

Labor is a market, and markets are determined by both the players and the rules under which the players compete. Companies use the force of law to coerce laborers (see: every other post in this tread where supposedly free people worry about being sued). It's completely fair game for labor-force participants to turn around are use that same force to coerce employers.

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#99

Post by wolverine876 »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #82
Scarblac wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it would be tough to argue that your at-home trading app code is completely uninfluenced by ideas you have at work. And that your at-work trading app code would be influenced by ideas you have at home. You're a craftsman making trading apps, some for an employer, some for yourself, it's what you do. It's strange for an employer to be allowed to force you to stop doing the others without compensating you for it.

> And that your at-work trading app code would be influenced by ideas you have at home. Umm, but you are also taking money from your employer so you can't say that in reverse.

It just depends on your agreement with the company. There's no reason that by default they own everything you do, beyond the fact that business has normalized it (and many other practices with the magic words 'it's just business').

Re: The case for banning non-competes

#100

Post by mattficke »

>The main idea of the non-compete agreement is that employers want to stop people from walking off the job and taking trade secrets to rival companies.

I don't think this is quite right. The main idea is that hiring and developing employees is hard and expensive, and companies want to have a claim on the future labor of the employee because of the investment they made.

In the tech industry, recruiting fees of 25% of the first year salary are common, which is an enormous amount of money and shows how valuable anything that accelerates the hiring process is.

Banning non-competes is a good idea for essentially the same reason a low unemployment rate is good: companies have to compete against each other to be the best place to work, which improves compensation and conditions for workers. It's easier when your only competition is poverty and unemployment, but that's not a good outcome for society at large.

Post reply on HN