4 ms·

The article says the noncompetes will stay for 100 executive level employees. Executive level and they have 100 of them? My experience tells me they probably ha

The article says the noncompetes will stay for 100 executive level employees. Executive level and they have 100 of them? My experience tells me they probably have the devs listed as fake executives like at a lot of companies so they don't have to pay them overtime. Is that what is really going on here? Noncompetes are terrible and places without them do very well, California being the best example. Everyone should work to get rid of them.

pmiller2 8y ago
Devs as fake executives? I’ve never heard of that specifically. Devs are often FLSA exempt employees due to their professional status, but that’s usually accurate. The effect of being FLSA exempt is that they aren’t paid overtime, but that’s just the law operating as intended.
- Latteland 8y ago
  I've personally known a couple of people that worked in NYC for big financial companies, and this was a known dodge. They even had a separate washroom and cafeteria for the real executives. I don't know the precise details, but I noticed that a software engineer colleague at a company had something on his resume about "vice president" on his resume at 'big finance co' and asked for the details.
  - pmiller2 8y ago
    Ok, I get it. Investment banks pretty much make almost everybody on salary (with some obvious exceptions, e.g. interns, administrative assistants, etc.) a “vice president.” It means nothing and is more out of tradition than anything. Those “VPs” are likely FLSA exempt regardless of title, based solely on what they do and the amount of professional judgment they get to exercise.
  - sethhochberg 8y ago
    I'm sure a lot of it is good old-fashioned title inflation, but at least in the financial world part of the reason for so many VPs is that its an easy title to give someone to make them a corporate officer, and thus eligible to sign on behalf of the company.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    That’s just the way banks work. VPs are managers everywhere else. My dad knew a good old boy type guy who had an epic VP of X title. His job duties consisted of buying a dozen different newspapers at the airport and matching obituaries and reports of deaths with safe deposit box holders before 9:30AM.
    - clamprecht 8y ago
      Sounds like a great subscription business right there. Charge $X per month to aggregate obituaries and make them searchable or matchable to a list every day. You just replaced a $60k/year employee.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - chadash 8y ago
    In investment banking, the career path is generally: Analyst (college graduate - 3 years) Associate (3 - ~6 years) Vice President (~6 - 8+) Executive Director Managing Director There are exceptions at every level, but generally speaking, you automatically get promoted to vice president after 6 years if you stick around. Note that the managing director has many levels. When I worked as an analyst at an investment bank, I reported to a managing director who had 3 other managing directors between him and the CEO of the investment bank (who himself reported to the CEO of the bank as a whole). A VP at an investment bank may have a few low level analysts reporting to them, but generally it's no where near what you would call an "executive" position, although pay can still be quite high.
- chewyfruitloop 8y ago
  I used to work for a large US corp that called us all professional developers, just so they don’t have to pay overtime... professional grades don’t get overtime
  - walshemj 8y ago
    Well it is a "professional" job - though I suspect the employer didn't follow through on the other side i.e. self directed time no fixed hours etc.
- vkou 8y ago
  As a junior developer at an investment bank, I had the title of Associate VP. We needed a VP to approve every code change. Fortunately, I had three of them on my team of five.
will_brown 8y ago
Despite the general California rule, California does in fact permit and enforce non-competes. If an employee obtains “trade secrets” and the non compete is narrowly tailored to prevent the employee from using said trade secrets, the non-compete will generally be enforceable.
- Latteland 8y ago
  True, but protection from stealing trade secrets and stealing customers are very different from ordinary devs facing non-competes. Every job I have taken in 25 years as a dev has them, never specifying what a competitor really means. If I work on optimizing compilers for Google I can't work at another company for a year? Amazon has actually enforced them against nonvps. Big companies basically compete against everything in the industry. You are confusing the issue imho. My current job says I am working under California law but still put a non-compete on my contract, because they want to make people think they can't leave.
  - toast0 8y ago
    > You are confusing the issue imho. California companies often have you sign an agreement that prohibits working for competitors, and says they'll fire you if you do; as far as I know, those are enforceable. That seems to meet the naming convention of non-compete. Perhaps we need to use another word for the post-employment non-competes allowed in less civilized regions.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      If you're working for a competitor while working for them...they probably should fire you simply as a matter of operational security unless you're doing the type of work where you wouldn't have any exposure to trade secrets.
      - toast0 8y ago
        Yeah, it's reasonable. Although it kind of kills any side projects if you're working at a big company; because name something fun to do that doesn't compete with Yahoo. But that's what I think of, when someone says non-compete. Because it's the only kind of non-compete I've seen, no one has tried to get me to sign a post-employment non-compete.
paulie_a 8y ago
Plus you can essentially and blatantly ignore them anyways. I had a non-compete and discussed the meritless nature of it with a lawyer. My response to the company had a few swear words in it. And the issue was settled because they knew they had no basis and it was completely uneforceable. I didn't care about burning bridges in this particular case.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Unfortunately, not everyone is in that position, or has access to an employment attorney, or even knows that they can challenge them.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    In some cases you won't even need that attorney. That costs money on their end too. Every once in a while you can stand your ground a bit and tell them to fuck off. I consulted one which was a waste of a small amount of money. It's amazing when they realize they have to spend a lot of money, and you are not going to back down. You don't even need an attorney to write a letter that says "fuck off". I've found when you meander around an issue like that, it's sometimes useful to go hard right out of the gate so the other side doesn't think you are a pushover. Although I generally prefer a more pragmatic and polite approach, there is a shock value that is useful.
gwbas1c 8y ago
100 employees... Makes me think of high-level employees who are "in the know" about company secrets.

pmiller2 8y ago

Devs as fake executives? I’ve never heard of that specifically. Devs are often FLSA exempt employees due to their professional status, but that’s usually accurate. The effect of being FLSA exempt is that they aren’t paid overtime, but that’s just the law operating as intended.

Latteland 8y ago
I've personally known a couple of people that worked in NYC for big financial companies, and this was a known dodge. They even had a separate washroom and cafeteria for the real executives. I don't know the precise details, but I noticed that a software engineer colleague at a company had something on his resume about "vice president" on his resume at 'big finance co' and asked for the details.
- pmiller2 8y ago
  Ok, I get it. Investment banks pretty much make almost everybody on salary (with some obvious exceptions, e.g. interns, administrative assistants, etc.) a “vice president.” It means nothing and is more out of tradition than anything. Those “VPs” are likely FLSA exempt regardless of title, based solely on what they do and the amount of professional judgment they get to exercise.
- sethhochberg 8y ago
  I'm sure a lot of it is good old-fashioned title inflation, but at least in the financial world part of the reason for so many VPs is that its an easy title to give someone to make them a corporate officer, and thus eligible to sign on behalf of the company.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  That’s just the way banks work. VPs are managers everywhere else. My dad knew a good old boy type guy who had an epic VP of X title. His job duties consisted of buying a dozen different newspapers at the airport and matching obituaries and reports of deaths with safe deposit box holders before 9:30AM.
  - clamprecht 8y ago
    Sounds like a great subscription business right there. Charge $X per month to aggregate obituaries and make them searchable or matchable to a list every day. You just replaced a $60k/year employee.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- chadash 8y ago
  In investment banking, the career path is generally: Analyst (college graduate - 3 years) Associate (3 - ~6 years) Vice President (~6 - 8+) Executive Director Managing Director There are exceptions at every level, but generally speaking, you automatically get promoted to vice president after 6 years if you stick around. Note that the managing director has many levels. When I worked as an analyst at an investment bank, I reported to a managing director who had 3 other managing directors between him and the CEO of the investment bank (who himself reported to the CEO of the bank as a whole). A VP at an investment bank may have a few low level analysts reporting to them, but generally it's no where near what you would call an "executive" position, although pay can still be quite high.
chewyfruitloop 8y ago
I used to work for a large US corp that called us all professional developers, just so they don’t have to pay overtime... professional grades don’t get overtime
- walshemj 8y ago
  Well it is a "professional" job - though I suspect the employer didn't follow through on the other side i.e. self directed time no fixed hours etc.
vkou 8y ago
As a junior developer at an investment bank, I had the title of Associate VP. We needed a VP to approve every code change. Fortunately, I had three of them on my team of five.

will_brown 8y ago

Despite the general California rule, California does in fact permit and enforce non-competes. If an employee obtains “trade secrets” and the non compete is narrowly tailored to prevent the employee from using said trade secrets, the non-compete will generally be enforceable.

Latteland 8y ago
True, but protection from stealing trade secrets and stealing customers are very different from ordinary devs facing non-competes. Every job I have taken in 25 years as a dev has them, never specifying what a competitor really means. If I work on optimizing compilers for Google I can't work at another company for a year? Amazon has actually enforced them against nonvps. Big companies basically compete against everything in the industry. You are confusing the issue imho. My current job says I am working under California law but still put a non-compete on my contract, because they want to make people think they can't leave.
- toast0 8y ago
  > You are confusing the issue imho. California companies often have you sign an agreement that prohibits working for competitors, and says they'll fire you if you do; as far as I know, those are enforceable. That seems to meet the naming convention of non-compete. Perhaps we need to use another word for the post-employment non-competes allowed in less civilized regions.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    If you're working for a competitor while working for them...they probably should fire you simply as a matter of operational security unless you're doing the type of work where you wouldn't have any exposure to trade secrets.
    - toast0 8y ago
      Yeah, it's reasonable. Although it kind of kills any side projects if you're working at a big company; because name something fun to do that doesn't compete with Yahoo. But that's what I think of, when someone says non-compete. Because it's the only kind of non-compete I've seen, no one has tried to get me to sign a post-employment non-compete.

paulie_a 8y ago

Plus you can essentially and blatantly ignore them anyways. I had a non-compete and discussed the meritless nature of it with a lawyer. My response to the company had a few swear words in it. And the issue was settled because they knew they had no basis and it was completely uneforceable. I didn't care about burning bridges in this particular case.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
Unfortunately, not everyone is in that position, or has access to an employment attorney, or even knows that they can challenge them.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  In some cases you won't even need that attorney. That costs money on their end too. Every once in a while you can stand your ground a bit and tell them to fuck off. I consulted one which was a waste of a small amount of money. It's amazing when they realize they have to spend a lot of money, and you are not going to back down. You don't even need an attorney to write a letter that says "fuck off". I've found when you meander around an issue like that, it's sometimes useful to go hard right out of the gate so the other side doesn't think you are a pushover. Although I generally prefer a more pragmatic and polite approach, there is a shock value that is useful.

gwbas1c 8y ago

100 employees... Makes me think of high-level employees who are "in the know" about company secrets.