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

New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 129 posts

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#91

Post by bombcar »

dragonwriter wrote: post #63
otterley wrote: post #30

Why wait until 2027, instead of making it effective immediately?

Because Washington has a Constitutional provision requiring that no law shall take effect sooner than 90 days after the end of the session in which it is adopted [0] unless it is an emergency law passed with a 2/3 vote, and the common convention for most normal laws is to set the first January 1 certain to come after the 90-day period of the current session as the effective date so that "new law day" for non-emergenc…

One of those is even enshrined as an amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-27/

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#92

Post by ralph84 »

WarmWash wrote: post #78
softwaredoug wrote: post #22

It’s not the noncompetes that’s the problem, it’s confidentiality agreements with extremely broad language. Learn about the legal principle of “inevitable disclosure”. It’s the idea you can’t work for a competitor because you can’t help yourself but violate an NDA

I haven't heard much about it, but I am incredibly curious about how this is currently shaking out in the AI craze. It seems these labs are revolving doors, and any kind of breakthrough knowledge would immediately make you incredibly valuable to other labs or incredibly valuable as a spinoff start-up. Never mind these researchers all knowing each other and certainly having more than a few common spaces (digital or IR…

They're all in California where the law is very pro-employee. As long as you're not taking actual documents or code with you, there's nothing your former employer can do about what's in your head.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#93

Post by [deleted] »

SilverElfin wrote: post #82
dragonwriter wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Washington has a 2/3 threshold in both houses of the legislature to pass emergency legislation, and the majority party is short of a 2/3 supermajority in both houses, so it is actually impossible for them to unilaterally pass emergency bills. Also, emergency laws in Washington are not immune to initiative (repeal or amendment by subsequent laws passed by the voters), but are immune to referendum (popular veto by the…

Where are you seeing that emergency clauses need a 2/3 majority in each house? I thought they require a simple majority. Regardless, the ruling party has pretty close to a supermajority - over 60% in each house. And also keep in mind, some of the members of the other party are opposition in name only due to the districts where they compete. The share doesn’t really matter - the main issue is that it is overused. Ther…

[deleted]

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#94

Post by tbrownaw »

lokar wrote: post #89
remarkEon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the actual steel man argument for why noncompetes are good? I've never really encountered one, just seen the corporate advocacy that they don't want to deal with high employee turnover. Best I can do: Non-competes are (possibly) unenforceable anyway, so signing one maybe acts as a value signal for the employee? "I'd have to violate my non-compete, so in order to do that and permanently burn the bridge with my…

In theory, something like a technical job that requires extensive training. I always see reports about a lack of training for high tech trade / manufacturing jobs, as they require up to 2 years of training, but training slots are limited. You might get companies to pay the training if they could be assured the person would not run to a competitor. But even that should be agreed up front, with a limited term (eg we wi…

The place I work has[1] a thing where they'll pay for (some?) college classes, and it comes with a clawback if you leave too quickly after.

[1] well, as of when I last looked a few years ago

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#95

Post by AlotOfReading »

WarmWash wrote: post #78
softwaredoug wrote: post #22

It’s not the noncompetes that’s the problem, it’s confidentiality agreements with extremely broad language. Learn about the legal principle of “inevitable disclosure”. It’s the idea you can’t work for a competitor because you can’t help yourself but violate an NDA

I haven't heard much about it, but I am incredibly curious about how this is currently shaking out in the AI craze. It seems these labs are revolving doors, and any kind of breakthrough knowledge would immediately make you incredibly valuable to other labs or incredibly valuable as a spinoff start-up. Never mind these researchers all knowing each other and certainly having more than a few common spaces (digital or IR…

This is a huge part of how SV as a whole works. People figure out what works and point out how to do things better at their next roles. It's mostly a good thing. The main downside is that it exacerbates tendencies to cargo cult apply solutions for problems that come from a particular organizational scale to orgs without them.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#96

Post by richwater »

colechristensen wrote: post #51
dismalaf wrote: post #43

This feels a tad heavy-handed and will make it tougher to sell a business without hard assets. It should just be banned for employees or require a payout of (previous salary) * (length of non-compete).

As the years go buy I'm gradually more and more in favor of restrictions to sell businesses. They tend to benefit two groups: the people running a successful business and the people running the even more successful businesses buying them. They tend not to benefit the employees, the customers, the competitors and really anyone else besides a small number of people who are already very successful.

This is quite a stupid idea: you kill all innovative behavior if a creator can't decide to sell his creation.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#97

Post by Twirrim »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #77
ChuckMcM wrote: post #64

If you had asked me in 1995 what was the one thing[1] that Boston could change in order to compete with Silicon Valley I would have told you "Make non-compete agreements illegal" Companies in the Bay Area whined about it all the time but it kept the ecosystem vibrant and a lot of technology exists because of that. In the late 90's early '00s a big reason for a lot of 'high profile' people quitting their cushy job and…

Wait, I'm confused. Do you mean Boston should have made non-compete agreements illegal?

Massachusetts used to be one of the most favourable states for non-compete agreements, with strong legal protection and support, favouring companies. Not sure if that has changed since the last time I looked (been a few years).

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#98

Post by Beestie »

marcosdumay wrote: post #88
Beestie wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-competes are restrictions on employees by their current employer. A non-compete agreement between a seller and buyer is perfectly fine.

> A non-compete agreement between a seller and buyer is perfectly fine. Well, it's up to market protection agencies to look at the specifics.

Not really. Individuals who can build a company are under no obligation to sell it to anyone placing unreasonable conditions on the sale. If I'm buying your company, I have a concern that you might pull of of the customers back (having started a new company) but the price I'm willing to offer you compensates you for the book of business you are selling to me. That's where non-solicitation clauses come in.

I think the operative principal here is that employees are at a disadvantage w/r to employers. Buyers and sellers are not presumed to be at any disadvantage w/r to each other.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#99

Post by modeless »

dismalaf wrote: post #43

This feels a tad heavy-handed and will make it tougher to sell a business without hard assets. It should just be banned for employees or require a payout of (previous salary) * (length of non-compete).

On the other hand it's a boon to those establishing new businesses. And a huge boon to employees. And a boon to the overall economy because it accelerates transfer of know-how out of older and more dysfunctional companies into newer and more nimble ones. This is what made Silicon Valley what it is, starting all the way back with the Traitorous Eight in 1957 and continuing today.

There are so many wannabe "New Silicon Valley" alternative areas that are unwilling to copy the non-compete ban, and subsequently fail to compete with the real Silicon Valley. It's a necessary ingredient in my opinion.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#100

Post by throwaway85825 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #57
colechristensen wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the years go buy I'm gradually more and more in favor of restrictions to sell businesses. They tend to benefit two groups: the people running a successful business and the people running the even more successful businesses buying them. They tend not to benefit the employees, the customers, the competitors and really anyone else besides a small number of people who are already very successful.

All voluntary transactions benefits both buyer and seller. This is as it should be!

And the government exists to safeguard the benefit of the broader public. Not all transactions are legal.
Post reply on HN