Hacker News Reader

Comment by NotSammyHagar | Hacker News Reader

I don't think there is any reason for noncompetes. They won't pay me if one makes me unemployable. They should be generally disallowed. They only help companies restrict their employee's mobility.

View on HN

What if the company pays 100k for your extra education in some specific niche field, and you then quit and get a 50k starting bonus at a competing company, that doesn't have to invest 100k for your education?

How would you know what specialized education the next employer needs? Also, that assumes that classes are equivalent to on the job training.

I guess you could get a job in the non-compete window, but only be trained by the next employer while the previous one paid. That seems complicated and silly though.

Companies do often have strings attached to paying for training/certifications/relocation. That doesn't require a non-compete.

This is the risk they take in exchange for being able to fire me at will.

What if I spend 100k moving across the country and the company decides to fire me?

The answer is the same.

I mean, that’s on them right? What these companies want is free market workers without the risk of having to provide a reason to stay at a place.

Common clause here if you go to a more expensive conference that you won't leave in 1 year or else you repay the costs. Same more or less can apply to learnings.

Said company should have you sign a contract promising to pay back that $100k if you quit within X years.

It's reasonable to allow them for certain positions, such as executives. Since NDAs aren't perfect and certain knowledge can and will be transferred. But only very high level positions should ever be subject to them.

Maybe those companies wouldn’t have existed without noncompetes, and not have provided those employees with jobs. Would you invest a large sum of money to build a site and hire a team if you knew it could not only vanish but also be turned against you at a moment’s notice? Surely the situation where employees have noncompetes is worse than the situation where there are fewer jobs because noncompetes don’t exist?

Would you really want to create a company where the only reason employees stick around is that they literally aren’t lawfully allowed to work anywhere else? An alien, yet common mindset.

I would not.

On the other hand I have no idea how to deal with a situation where a small tech company develops some highly specialised expertise in house only to have all their employees poached over night by a far bigger competitor that can pay them a salary or signing bonus that would be uneconomical for the smaller company to match.

How would you discourage this kind of hostile takeover?

A small company handles that by offering equity to the critical employees and having them share in the success of the company.

Also, intellectual property and a stiff legal budget.

Be a better working environment?

Prohibiting someone from competing with you is not at all the same as forcing them to work for you. Furthermore, if an employee doesn’t want to be subject to a noncompete agreement, they could just…not work there? Also, non-competes don’t prohibit working anywhere else.

Surely noncompete clauses are mainly to allow companies to treat their employees poorly, knowing that they won't be able to get a job elsewhere. The alternative to having noncompetes is to value and reward your employees sufficiently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com