5 ms·
noncompetes work even when illegal and unenforceable. Why, because you or many of your potential employers don't want the massive cost and emotional toll of bei
by harry8 8y ago
noncompetes work even when illegal and unenforceable. Why, because you or many of your potential employers don't want the massive cost and emotional toll of being sued - even if you win you lose. That's all google, facebook, microsoft, etc. you know the companies that we KNOW are guilty of operating a cartel to drive down wages. That's all they need. This baseless illegal, legally unenforcable contract provision means they can use to impose a huge fine on you that is a negligible, non-material business expense to them even when they lose and you win in court. They win and you lose in real life.
Law is supposed to exist so the strongest might not always get their way. The law totally and utterly fails when it comes to non-competes. There are incentives to abuse them and no meaningful consequences.
Cue the apologists working for the big silicon valley players...
- twblalock 8y ago> Cue the apologists working for the big silicon valley players... Why? Silicon Valley is in California where noncompetes are illegal. Silicon Valley companies don't use them. I've been in Silicon Valley my entire career and I have never seen one or heard of anyone who has.
- foobiekr 8y agoI have personally witnessed a silicon valley company attempt to impose a non-compete on some employees in another state.
- cryptonector 8y agoDid you read the rest of the post you're responding to? Did I miss something? I thought u/adyidsinga explained it quite well.
- alistairSH 8y agoAll of those companies extend outside of California. Googling “google noncompete” turned up several examples. Here’s one... https://gawker.com/378444/did-you-sign-googles-noncompete-good-youre-fired https://gawker.com/378444/did-you-sign-googles-noncompete-go...
- harry8 8y agoI don't follow, which part did you fail to understand?
- harry8 8y agoThe response has now been edited and explains more fully as a result of that. Just FYI. Charitable, yes. We should all be more so.
- fragmede 8y agoThe part where trying to enforce a non-compete in California will get you laughed (literally!) out of a lawyers office. Unless the employee in question is unable to use Google and search for "non compete california", which, I'd hope every tech worker is able to use Google, the zeroth (meaning, it's right on the search results page, and not a link away, it states "In the state of California, non-compete agreements that seek to prohibit employees from obtaining gainful employment are null and void."
- leereeves 8y agoWhile I believe that's true, anyone with a serious concern shouldn't be taking legal advice from search results.
- PhoenixReborn 8y agoI've never been asked to sign a noncompete when working in California for any company, including Google. I have not worked at the others so I can't say what their practices are, but most CA-based companies will never even try to get you to sign a non-compete agreement because they know it cannot be enforced.
- greglindahl 8y agoIBM's contract with California employees doesn't have anything inappropriate for a California employee. That sort of thing is a basic indication of business ethics. Say what you will about IBM in other areas, but they're very ethical about employment contracts.
- pnw_hazor 8y agoSV companies operating in Washington State have some of the worst non-competes.
- harry8 8y ago"Why? Silicon Valley is in California where noncompetes are illegal" Everything that follows this is a subsequent edit.
- Stratoscope 8y agoIs that a problem? I routinely edit my own comments to clarify a thought or fix a typo, and I'm grateful when others take the trouble to do the same.
- harry8 8y agoGo right ahead and note the edit. You see it frequently around here, people write edit: I'm adding this bit for further explanation. I was being criticised rather heavily for responding to what was written as it didn't look "Charitable" in the light of subsequent expansion. It's right there still if you care to look. edit: this conversation thread has been completely de-railed by it. Was that the point? Who knows...
- Stratoscope 8y agoI hope you won't mind too much if I disagree with you about this. I don't personally find any value in remarks like "edit: fixed a typo and added a couple more sentences to help explain what I meant." I don't plan to start adding those kinds of remarks when I edit a comment. I don't care if other people do this, I just don't see any value in it myself, and I'm just as happy if people simply edit their comments without calling special attention to the edit. I'm not following the history of their comment, I'm just reading it at the moment I read it. Of course if people have replied to a comment, and a subsequent edit changes the meaning of the comment so the replies don't make sense any more, that is a different story and deserves an "edit" remark.
- harry8 8y agoOk then don't edit your comment at all. Changing the context of the responses to make them look bad is a dk move full stop the end. Clear enough? Good o. Best.
- ghaff 8y agoThey're not illegal. They're just unlikely to be enforceable. Big difference.
- Gibbon1 8y agoAnd those SV companies also were caught having a no poaching agreements between each other. If those guys could enforce non-competes in California they would do so reflexively.
- maxxxxx 8y agoThat's the problem with the legal system. It's very easy to bully the little guy. Even if the company loses it will still have cost a lot of money that most employees can't afford.
- trhway 8y ago>That's all google, facebook, microsoft, etc. you know the companies that we KNOW are guilty of operating a cartel to drive down wages The cartel was broken around 2010 and that (together with options expensing) have led to the compensations growth from $150K back then to $400K+ today. If anything the FB, Google, etc are driving everybody's wages up today.
- nsxwolf 8y agoWhat does that mean? Are you saying that if I made $150k in 2010, I should expect to be making $400k or more today?
- djsumdog 8y agoThis is very true. I knew someone who couldn't get a job with another advertising firm because he had signed a non-compete. Even though they're not enforceable, no company wants to hired from another company where they know those companies sign non-competes (and hence they could be in for a court case). This situation is real and I've seen it happen more than once.
- ghaff 8y agoI worked for a small firm for a number of years. We wouldn't touch anyone who had a non-compete however unlikely it was to come into play. Just wasn't worth the business risk.