5 ms·

I’ve found these non-competes often have no teeth. Unless you possess exceptional knowledge or secrets, companies will not waste the resources going after you.

I’ve found these non-competes often have no teeth. Unless you possess exceptional knowledge or secrets, companies will not waste the resources going after you. And often when they do, they lose. But it’s a judgement call. I’d say the fear of non-competes has more power than the non-competes themselves.

ilikehurdles 8y ago
Yet despite the fact that only _maybe_ executives should be subject to enforceable non-competes, it is the case that just about every new hire has to sign a non-compete clause at most tech companies. In fact, the only people with enough leverage to successfully be able to push back against a non-compete are the very execs who the non-competes are meant for. You're right that the fear has more power than the non-compete itself, but the reality then is that companies en masse employ a politics of fear in their contract language.
- amerberg 8y ago
  About a year ago, I lost a new job before starting because the new company didn't want to deal with legal threats from my former employer. They agreed with my lawyer that my former employer wouldn't have a strong case, but they expressed concern that it would look bad for them to be involved in litigation. The CEO who had been threatening to sue me and the new company was removed in June, presumably for unrelated reasons. Last week, he announced that he was taking a job which _my_ noncompete certainly would have prohibited me from taking. Now, I don't know if he had a noncompete with my former employer. Perhaps he was able to negotiate it away. Maybe he was granted permission. Maybe he'll get sued, but I think that's unlikely because they have to know the new company will have his back and that they don't stand a chance of winning. Whatever the case, it shows who the system works for.
sbjustin 8y ago
The problem is the average person doesn't have the money to pay a lawyer to fight off a company - especially the ones with teams of lawyers who need something to do.
- tranchms 8y ago
  If you’re the “average person”, you have nothing to worry about. Trust me. Non-competes really only matter for people with exceptional knowledge of something. From a business standpoint, the legal resources to build a case against a single “average person” who signs a generic non-compete are not a good investment. But like I said, it’s a judgement call. Anyone in the possession of that exceptional knowledge should be able to determine the risk.
  - ilikehurdles 8y ago
    If the average person has nothing to worry about then why do all average people have to sign non-competes if they want the job? The fact is that companies see a benefit in threatening all new hires with non-competes, and like I said elsewhere, the only people with enough pull to negotiate out of a non-compete are those highly specialized non-average people who are the least likely to sign the boilerplate contract, who the company will still want to hire when they push back with specific demands. So who are the non-competes really for then?
    - cc439 8y ago
      >So who are the non-competes really for then? They're for assuaging the corporate leadership that they are actually effective at managing that pesky turnover problem they've been having in a manner that doesn't require them to increase pay or improve working conditions. That and people who carry a "book of business" (the sales team) and those with critical expertise in certain, niche knowledge domains.
  - anarazel 8y ago
    Uh, I know of several low-mid level techies where their companies played hardball around their non-competes.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    I have heard of hiring companies dropping new hires because they had a non-compete. They didn't want to take the risk so the company that has the non-compete doesn't even have to do anything for it to have an effect.
_m96l 8y ago
> I’ve found these non-competes often have no teeth. Unless you possess exceptional knowledge or secrets, companies will not waste the resources going after you. You naively conflate "not biting" with "having no teeth". Amazon forces all workers to sign non-competes. They only sue those who piss them off. Granted, a small minority. But that minority suffers a harrowing ordeal, typically losing their new job and their ability to work. You better believe the rest are kept in line by the mere threat of such lawsuit, and the courts have enforced the non-compete in the cases Amazon did take legal action.
- ixacto 8y ago
  Didn't know that, also FUCK AMAZON from now on. But what are they going to do? Some sort of civil suit is not that big of a deal if you have your assets appropriately sheltered. Although this makes me hate Jeff Bezos just a little bit more. Hope he loses it all in the divorce battle.
  - iaw 8y ago
    > But what are they going to do? Some sort of civil suit is not that big of a deal if you have your assets appropriately sheltered. I think this statement minimizes the severity of being sued. The stress of a civil suit that threatens your long-term livelihood is a very big deal, daily uncertainty for prolonged period of times about important parts of your life can cause a lot of nasty health problems.
- useranme 8y ago
  Good to know. I'll never work for Amazon no matter what the pay is.

ilikehurdles 8y ago

Yet despite the fact that only _maybe_ executives should be subject to enforceable non-competes, it is the case that just about every new hire has to sign a non-compete clause at most tech companies. In fact, the only people with enough leverage to successfully be able to push back against a non-compete are the very execs who the non-competes are meant for. You're right that the fear has more power than the non-compete itself, but the reality then is that companies en masse employ a politics of fear in their contract language.

amerberg 8y ago
About a year ago, I lost a new job before starting because the new company didn't want to deal with legal threats from my former employer. They agreed with my lawyer that my former employer wouldn't have a strong case, but they expressed concern that it would look bad for them to be involved in litigation. The CEO who had been threatening to sue me and the new company was removed in June, presumably for unrelated reasons. Last week, he announced that he was taking a job which _my_ noncompete certainly would have prohibited me from taking. Now, I don't know if he had a noncompete with my former employer. Perhaps he was able to negotiate it away. Maybe he was granted permission. Maybe he'll get sued, but I think that's unlikely because they have to know the new company will have his back and that they don't stand a chance of winning. Whatever the case, it shows who the system works for.

sbjustin 8y ago

The problem is the average person doesn't have the money to pay a lawyer to fight off a company - especially the ones with teams of lawyers who need something to do.

tranchms 8y ago
If you’re the “average person”, you have nothing to worry about. Trust me. Non-competes really only matter for people with exceptional knowledge of something. From a business standpoint, the legal resources to build a case against a single “average person” who signs a generic non-compete are not a good investment. But like I said, it’s a judgement call. Anyone in the possession of that exceptional knowledge should be able to determine the risk.
- ilikehurdles 8y ago
  If the average person has nothing to worry about then why do all average people have to sign non-competes if they want the job? The fact is that companies see a benefit in threatening all new hires with non-competes, and like I said elsewhere, the only people with enough pull to negotiate out of a non-compete are those highly specialized non-average people who are the least likely to sign the boilerplate contract, who the company will still want to hire when they push back with specific demands. So who are the non-competes really for then?
  - cc439 8y ago
    >So who are the non-competes really for then? They're for assuaging the corporate leadership that they are actually effective at managing that pesky turnover problem they've been having in a manner that doesn't require them to increase pay or improve working conditions. That and people who carry a "book of business" (the sales team) and those with critical expertise in certain, niche knowledge domains.
- anarazel 8y ago
  Uh, I know of several low-mid level techies where their companies played hardball around their non-competes.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I have heard of hiring companies dropping new hires because they had a non-compete. They didn't want to take the risk so the company that has the non-compete doesn't even have to do anything for it to have an effect.

_m96l 8y ago

> I’ve found these non-competes often have no teeth. Unless you possess exceptional knowledge or secrets, companies will not waste the resources going after you. You naively conflate "not biting" with "having no teeth". Amazon forces all workers to sign non-competes. They only sue those who piss them off. Granted, a small minority. But that minority suffers a harrowing ordeal, typically losing their new job and their ability to work. You better believe the rest are kept in line by the mere threat of such lawsuit, and the courts have enforced the non-compete in the cases Amazon did take legal action.

ixacto 8y ago
Didn't know that, also FUCK AMAZON from now on. But what are they going to do? Some sort of civil suit is not that big of a deal if you have your assets appropriately sheltered. Although this makes me hate Jeff Bezos just a little bit more. Hope he loses it all in the divorce battle.
- iaw 8y ago
  > But what are they going to do? Some sort of civil suit is not that big of a deal if you have your assets appropriately sheltered. I think this statement minimizes the severity of being sued. The stress of a civil suit that threatens your long-term livelihood is a very big deal, daily uncertainty for prolonged period of times about important parts of your life can cause a lot of nasty health problems.
useranme 8y ago
Good to know. I'll never work for Amazon no matter what the pay is.