8 ms·

As an employer, I'm quite fine with this - as the law still allows for an agreement to be made about soliciting clients. If relationship with an employee and

As an employer, I'm quite fine with this - as the law still allows for an agreement to be made about soliciting clients. If relationship with an employee and my company sours, all I really care about is that poor relationship not transferring to the relationship between my company and my clients. Artificially locking ourselves into to a bad employer/employee relationship does nobody any good.

hueving 11y ago
I think the reason some employers want them is because they don't want to put the effort into building up an employees skills just to have them move to a different company right when they become useful. When you are an employee under these laws, you tend to put a lot more thought into choosing a company you would be willing to stay with as long as you are interested in that section of the industry.
- benjohnson 11y ago
  It's a valid concern - that by training your employees and giving them experience, you make then so valuable that they can leave. I fight this problem several ways: I turn our services into a products so that I can onboard people quickly and drive down costs - for example instead of telling each employees to setup a backup on a server, I had one employee make a script that we can deploy on all new servers. By turning processed into an easy to deploy product - It also keeps boredom low. I give raises quickly and early to match new skills, so that when they do go job hunting they don't see a tremendous pay increase. I compartmentalize employees so that they get really really good at a smaller range of skills - this lets me charge the customer more, and lets me pay my employees more, but it also has the side effect of diminishing job prospects.
  - geomark 11y ago
    That last point may sound evil to some people who want the employee to hold all the cards. But it is the classic division-of-labor approach that increases productivity in any undertaking. And it's a win-win since you can charge more and pay more.
  - ma2rten 11y ago
    it also has the side effect of diminishing job prospects. What exactly do you mean? In my experience companies often try to hire people with specific skills instead of generalists (which btw is a mistake imo, smart people will be able to pick up the skill in question).
    - benjohnson 11y ago
      I certainly agree that smart people will quickly develop! Based on the small size of the company, I must hire people who are intelligent and yet are passed over by the job market because they can't display that with a degree or job experience, and I've found your assertion to be true. You're probably correct - perhaps given that we pay well and hold fast to 40 hours- it's more likely that there's not much incentive to leave.
  - Spivak 11y ago
    > I fight this problem several ways This is completely, totally, and nonsensically evil that I'm not sure even where to begin. Supposing your company hired me and I knew this was the opinion of anyone who worked in management I would be polishing my résumé my first day on the job. This is the best way to make sure that the only people working for you are mindless drones and your HR office is a revolving door rather than a ladder for people with an ounce of ambition.
    - elevenfist 11y ago
      I have yet to ever interview for, or interact with/work for, an employer in high-tech Silicon Valley who did not obviously (to me) share these beliefs. Could you talk a little more about your experiences?
    - benjohnson 11y ago
      I wasn't clear enough - by investing time and energy into simplifying our mundane services into a product, we're able to expand into more interesting projects - and we have the profitability to do charity work and blue sky work. I'm certain that there are employees that like rote work, but for me, I can't stand it and project that onto others.
      - djur 11y ago
        What I reacted to was the suggestion that > it also has the side effect of diminishing job prospects is a good or desirable thing.
        belenos46 11y ago
        For the employee it's not. For the employer, it obviously is. If you can't get hired somewhere else, you're not going to bail. As someone dealing with basically this situation, it sucks, but if I was also getting handed one-off "solve this puzzle and we're going to use the code you make every day" problems and raises early and often, it wouldn't suck nearly this much.
        benjohnson 11y ago
  - jackmaney 11y ago
    Please tell me the name of your company, because I don't EVER want to make the mistake of working for you.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
crimsonalucard 11y ago
Your problem is when someone you have a good relationship with is seduced by something hotter and sexier.
- benjohnson 11y ago
  I can see why's that would be frustrating, but my employees are not "mine" - so they are free to go at any time and hence, I need to treat them well. If an employee is seduced by an offer that doesn't work out - they can (and have) come back and can bring back what they learned. One of the thing that I learned from such exits an re-entryies is that money is not always the best motivator - I used to run really lean to have a high payroll. Now I run lean to provide a good work environment - I can now fire bad companies that don't respect my employees.
  - rodgerd 11y ago
    > I can see why's that would be frustrating, but my employees are not "mine" - so they are free to go at any time and hence, I need to treat them well. It's great to hear someone articulating that point on HN. There is too often a constant stream of suggestions to the effect employees are a form of chattel.
  - thirdtruck 11y ago
    If I hadn't started my new job just this week, I'd ask if you were hiring.
  - ddingus 11y ago
    Thanks for expressing that point of view.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Tsagadai 11y ago
  Romantic relationships are also not somewhere where people should be punished for leaving because they were seduced by someone hotter and sexier either. People are not owned by anyone but themselves.

hueving 11y ago

I think the reason some employers want them is because they don't want to put the effort into building up an employees skills just to have them move to a different company right when they become useful. When you are an employee under these laws, you tend to put a lot more thought into choosing a company you would be willing to stay with as long as you are interested in that section of the industry.

benjohnson 11y ago
It's a valid concern - that by training your employees and giving them experience, you make then so valuable that they can leave. I fight this problem several ways: I turn our services into a products so that I can onboard people quickly and drive down costs - for example instead of telling each employees to setup a backup on a server, I had one employee make a script that we can deploy on all new servers. By turning processed into an easy to deploy product - It also keeps boredom low. I give raises quickly and early to match new skills, so that when they do go job hunting they don't see a tremendous pay increase. I compartmentalize employees so that they get really really good at a smaller range of skills - this lets me charge the customer more, and lets me pay my employees more, but it also has the side effect of diminishing job prospects.
- geomark 11y ago
  That last point may sound evil to some people who want the employee to hold all the cards. But it is the classic division-of-labor approach that increases productivity in any undertaking. And it's a win-win since you can charge more and pay more.
- ma2rten 11y ago
  it also has the side effect of diminishing job prospects. What exactly do you mean? In my experience companies often try to hire people with specific skills instead of generalists (which btw is a mistake imo, smart people will be able to pick up the skill in question).
  - benjohnson 11y ago
    I certainly agree that smart people will quickly develop! Based on the small size of the company, I must hire people who are intelligent and yet are passed over by the job market because they can't display that with a degree or job experience, and I've found your assertion to be true. You're probably correct - perhaps given that we pay well and hold fast to 40 hours- it's more likely that there's not much incentive to leave.
- Spivak 11y ago
  > I fight this problem several ways This is completely, totally, and nonsensically evil that I'm not sure even where to begin. Supposing your company hired me and I knew this was the opinion of anyone who worked in management I would be polishing my résumé my first day on the job. This is the best way to make sure that the only people working for you are mindless drones and your HR office is a revolving door rather than a ladder for people with an ounce of ambition.
  - elevenfist 11y ago
    I have yet to ever interview for, or interact with/work for, an employer in high-tech Silicon Valley who did not obviously (to me) share these beliefs. Could you talk a little more about your experiences?
  - benjohnson 11y ago
    I wasn't clear enough - by investing time and energy into simplifying our mundane services into a product, we're able to expand into more interesting projects - and we have the profitability to do charity work and blue sky work. I'm certain that there are employees that like rote work, but for me, I can't stand it and project that onto others.
    - djur 11y ago
      What I reacted to was the suggestion that > it also has the side effect of diminishing job prospects is a good or desirable thing.
      - belenos46 11y ago
        For the employee it's not. For the employer, it obviously is. If you can't get hired somewhere else, you're not going to bail. As someone dealing with basically this situation, it sucks, but if I was also getting handed one-off "solve this puzzle and we're going to use the code you make every day" problems and raises early and often, it wouldn't suck nearly this much.
      - benjohnson 11y ago
- jackmaney 11y ago
  Please tell me the name of your company, because I don't EVER want to make the mistake of working for you.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

crimsonalucard 11y ago

Your problem is when someone you have a good relationship with is seduced by something hotter and sexier.

benjohnson 11y ago
I can see why's that would be frustrating, but my employees are not "mine" - so they are free to go at any time and hence, I need to treat them well. If an employee is seduced by an offer that doesn't work out - they can (and have) come back and can bring back what they learned. One of the thing that I learned from such exits an re-entryies is that money is not always the best motivator - I used to run really lean to have a high payroll. Now I run lean to provide a good work environment - I can now fire bad companies that don't respect my employees.
- rodgerd 11y ago
  > I can see why's that would be frustrating, but my employees are not "mine" - so they are free to go at any time and hence, I need to treat them well. It's great to hear someone articulating that point on HN. There is too often a constant stream of suggestions to the effect employees are a form of chattel.
- thirdtruck 11y ago
  If I hadn't started my new job just this week, I'd ask if you were hiring.
- ddingus 11y ago
  Thanks for expressing that point of view.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Tsagadai 11y ago
Romantic relationships are also not somewhere where people should be punished for leaving because they were seduced by someone hotter and sexier either. People are not owned by anyone but themselves.