Hacker News Reader

Comment by DominikR | Hacker News Reader

I wonder what a principled position on this matter would be.

On one hand everyone is free to trade freedoms for gains (usually monetary - every contract restricts both parties freedom), but on the other hand you can't trade certain freedoms away that we view as fundamental.

Even though I am certainly no proponent of non-compete agreements I cautiously tend towards viewing such contracts as acceptable and valid.

You usually do limit selling your services already the moment you accept a position as an employee, at least for the time you stay employed there. Contractually expanding it for a mutually agreed upon period doesn't strike me as that much different, at least as long as there was no coercion involved and both sides fully understood the consequences.

View on HN

It's not a fair negotiating position. If a company wants everyone on a non-compete, they'll be able to do so without providing any benefit for almost all employees.

I've had a company try and add a non-compete to a contract. They're generally not valid where I live, but it is always a hassle between having rights and getting that right. So I crossed it out of the contract (legal thing to do). That was a first for that HR, but it was accepted.

Note: talking in general. There might be exceptions in certain situations. E.g. CEO/strategic level functions or in case the salary is continued for the length of the non-compete period in case of not being able to find work (Belgium law ensures half of the salary).

The coercion is usually that you don't know about the non-compete until you walk in and sign your employment contract on day 1.

>Contractually expanding it for a mutually agreed upon period doesn't strike me as that much different

As long as I'm compensated for that period (a normal wage) then I think it's fair.

> The coercion is usually that you don't know about the non-compete until you walk in and sign your employment contract on day 1.

Okay this is really bad, in the EU country where I live you usually first negotiate and sign the contract, then start working.

But the drawback is that it is really just done this way because the government requires that the business notifies it about your employment before you start working, which is a privacy issue.

I think I'd still prefer it the US way. I'd ask about this before starting to work. (if this isn't a no go)

Yep, they spring it on you by giving you your 'Employee Handbook' or something on your first day, after you accepted the offer and relocated and whatever else you wanted to do, then sit down to sign paperwork on your first day and.... yep, there it is, that sneaky little non-compete. You ask HR about it and they'll probably just say "It's standard legalese, everyone here signed it, it's no big deal, just sign the damn thing, or you can walk."

You have to bring it up in the interview if you don't want to be bound by one. But even just asking could spook out the interviewees and get them to pass on you "Is this guy a Snowden? Is he going to steal and leak all our preeeeecious 'secrets'?"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com