Hacker News Reader

Comment by aninteger | Hacker News Reader

I'm curious if non-competes were a thing at this period of time. I'm not sure if something like this could happen today (although I'm sure it still happens).

View on HN

Non-competes have been a thing for centuries, but California banned them in 1872.

which is awfully convenient that amzn and microsoft (and uber?) are based in washington state where this doesnt apply

Noncompetes are pretty toothless, even illegal in several jurisdictions. Even then, a company with money and clout to poach talent like that can also stand up for you if your failing ex-employer chooses to lash out.

>Noncompetes are pretty toothless

Not true. They’re illegal in California, but in other US states where they are legal they can be quite toothful. I have seen several ex-employees of my prior company get sued and lose.

It became a silent doctrine to just leave a two year gap on your public LinkedIn after working there. If you put anything in that period (the length of the non-compete), you were at risk of the CTO suing you for fun if he thought any of the scope your prior work overlapped with your new role. Fun stuff.

In texas they must have a geographic nexus in them, so if you move from Austin to Dallas, its often void.

They are also illegal in most European countries.

They're not illegal in Germany, but the legal requirements are so onerous (50% salary paid for the duration of the non-compete) nobody does it. I believe it's similar in France.

They can be done in Germany if they are very limited in scope, basically if they don't make it harder to find your next job. But it's a fine line, and if a court decides you stepped over the line it's as you described. Nobody sane would put it in a standard contract below C-level.

Yep,same in France, and they have to be geographically limited.

Interesting, as given most of my clarification talks with Betriebsrat, I thought it wouldn't be valid in court, unless they can prove you are doing some kind of industrial spionage like working in exactly 1:1 competing product.

I think Massachusetts has similar rules these days (after long-running opposition from some major employers). However, while 50% salary definitely makes a company put skin in the game, it's not a panacea. And, from an employee point of view, how many people will be comfortable with taking 50% salary (with no benefits, bonuses, or RSUs) to hang out for a year? Sure, some younger folks might see it as an opportunity but it may not be such a good deal for someone supporting a family.

> benefits, bonuses, or RSUs

"Benefits" isn't really relevant for Germany but bonuses and RSUs (though again, nobody in Germany gets those) are figured into the 50%.

Pretty much everyone I know would take such a contract; programmers make 1.5x-2x median salary to begin with even in Europe, and it's "don't compete", not "don't work".

In Massachusetts at least I think it's strictly salary which could probably represent 25% or less of your total comp. And yeah, you can work but there's no guarantee you would be able to work for another vaguely related software company, for example. I know people who wanted to go off on their own as consultants and did indeed have to take a year off.

> In Massachusetts at least I think it's strictly salary which could probably represent 25% or less of your total comp.

Then for most people this holds true they're making like $100k/year and $300k/year in RSUs? "Uncomfortable" taking a year with _no work_ for "only" $50k after that? I mean, come on. If you want to top it up, flip burgers a couple days a week.

Do you have a source on this? I am currently looking into the limitations on non-competes.

Not really, other than having discussed this issue several times with the union people throughout the years, and knowing for sure that in countries like Portugal, this is definitly not a thing, given how we jump between companies.

Nope. They're just in legal practice way more limited in scope. It has to be with a company that actually competes with the company you left.

Notice the most.

They are illegal for pretty much all but the board members, and even then the salaries must be paid to enforce it.

They are not illegal in the UK although there are some limits in time and space. You might still end up out of work for 6 months ore more. Worse they are sometime applied to relatively unskilled jobs.

The one in Poland is fun. You can bar someone from working in the same field for quite some time but you must pay them 70-80% (I don't quite remember how much but something like that) of their annual salary during that time. Which means that most of the people proposing this kind of deal are clueless ans greedy businessmen who think they found a perfect leash for their employees but what's actually happening is that they find out far too late that it's binding them and not the employee.

They're not illegal. They're just generally unenforceable.

And, even if you don't end up losing after being sued, many people won't roll the dice if a threatened with a suit because they'll probably be out big bucks even if they win. Better to just take a year off; I've known people who have done so when they've been in a situation where a prior employer was likely to sue.

> >Noncompetes are pretty toothless

> Not true.

Sure, if you delete the "in several jurisdictions". But when you read the entire sentence, then what I said is correct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com