by helterskelter
4 subcomments
- Story time for NC's. I had a doctor that lived near me working at a medical clinic that got bought up by PE. He signed the new contract with them and kept working for a while, but decided he needed to move for one reason or another. After he quits, PE informs him of the NC in the new contract he signed, and that he wouldn't be able to practice medicine for N years (I think it was something like 5). He ended up hanging himself, and in response, the clinic's staff quit en masse and basically dared the PE company to try and enforce the clause. PE backed down because suing all the doctors individually would have cost too much and it would have been awful PR for the practice. They ended up selling the clinic before the year was out.
by rrrrrrrrrrrryan
0 subcomment
- There's a strong argument to be made that the banning of non-competes is the main reason California is the software capital of the world.
- Non-competes in finance almost always come with compensation during the defined period.
The idea that a company can restrict at-will employee’s post-separation employment is absurd if they aren’t compensating the individual.
In many US states and countries outside the US, the enforcement of non-competes is very very hard. The problem is that they create a RISK of enforcement.
- These are often not disclosed until you start. Day 1 'paperwork' that drastically changes the agreed upon terms of employment well after you have left a previous position. In some cases they are even forced on you after having worked somewhere for a while and future employment is predicated on them. They are evil. I almost quit my job over this, but of course how can you afford to not work while searching? And searching while out of work is far harder than while still working. We need penalties on companies that do this, not just a ban. 'Sign this or you are fired' documents after you are hired should have repercussions.
- Thankful that California banned them, others should follow suit.
- Australia is limiting / banning non competes for certain workers
https://www.mlc.org.au/whats-changing-with-non-compete-claus...
by Hnrobert42
1 subcomments
- In all cases where I was presented with an unreasonable non-compete, I either negotiated it away or scratched it out before signing. I know not everyone has that luxury, but if your BATNA is signing, it's worth a shot.
by senderista
1 subcomments
- Sadly Amazon has been known to enforce its 18-month NC in WA state (not sure if they’ve ever prevailed in court). They will absolutely not negotiate on this.
by radicaldreamer
0 subcomment
- Not enforceable in California
by Alien1Being
0 subcomment
- With the recent well publicised cases of developers stealing proprietary information, this is going to become more common.
- Not worth even printing out where I am. They are worthless.
- I’d be fine signing a non compete if they ever offered anything in return. If they want me to stay out of the market for a period of time, they better pay garden leave or SOME sort of consideration
- Also not enforceable in Ontario Canada since 2021.
- Just ignore them completely unless you're an executive.
- I don't think I can live outside of California at this point
I don’t even negotiate these clauses I just have so much assurance the state is going to throw out the case that I just let the client shoot themselves in the foot, and silently get invested in seeing which other ways they’ll mess up
by metoobruh
2 subcomments
- When it comes to enslavement to giant corporations or government, all I can say is:
"The only winning move is not to play."
Hacker News