9 ms·

If you, or the company, is in California go ahead and sign it. Non-competes are not valid or enforceable in the state of California. I am not a lawyer, but wh

by loxias 6y ago

If you, or the company, is in California go ahead and sign it. Non-competes are not valid or enforceable in the state of California. I am not a lawyer, but when faced with a very similar situation, the lawyer I sought advice from told me this.

bombcar 6y ago
I wonder if that applies to ones signed outside of California but then the signee moves.
- loxias 6y ago
  I wonder too. Ask a lawyer! I've had the (dis)pleasure of dealing with employment lawyers, and it's amazing the stuff we don't know, that they do, and works in our favor.
- wikibob 6y ago
  From my research, agreements signed outside of California are enforceable via a court in that other state. Beware.
WalterBright 6y ago
> If you, or the company, is in California go ahead and sign it. Non-competes are not valid or enforceable in the state of California. Making an agreement you have no intention of adhering to is not ethical, regardless of whether the law backs you up or not. It's better to simply strike out that line and say it's not valid in California so why have it in the contract.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > Making an agreement you have no intention of adhering to is not ethical, regardless of whether the law backs you up or not. Yes it is. If a company is making its employees sign unethical agreements, then they deserve any negative consequence to that. Don't make your employees sign unethical agreements, if you don't want people to lie to you, and screw you over. Unironically, companies that do this, should be named and shamed, and everyone should take every legal option that they can get away with to screw over the company and the people who are making these decisions. > It's better to simply strike out that line and say it's not valid in California so why have it in the contract. Nope. Screw them over instead. They deserve it. Its legal, and they deserve to have negative consequences on them.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > Yes it is. Nobody made you sign it. Reneging on your agreement is dishonorable.
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      No. The text is void. The law is that you agreed to a contract equivalent to one with that text crossed out. They knew it, you knew it, they knew you knew it, you knew they knew it. But actually do cross it out before signing, if that makes you feel any better.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        It's about your word, not the law. Although the law says that clause is not enforceable, that does not mean you cannot abide by the terms. I.e. reneging on your agreement is reneging on it, plain and simple. Signing the agreement knowing you're going to renege on it is unethical. > But actually do cross it out before signing, if that makes you feel any better. Man up and line it out if you aren't going to abide by it.
        agildehaus 6y ago
        Most people are signing these agreements because the alternative is not to have a roof over your head or eat.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        Non-competes are for high value jobs. They're not starving.
        nobodyandproud 6y ago
        Non-competes are applied to fresh graduates on a regular basis, so that’s straight-out misinformation.
- akarma 6y ago
  Why is it not ethical? I would just sign it knowing that the law has you covered in case they (attempt to) take legal action against you in the future. These companies don't care if some of their contract is enforceable -- they want you to believe it is. They almost certainly know the law and know that it isn't enforceable, but it's still there for a reason.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > Why is it not ethical? Agreeing to something you have no intention of following through with is unethical. > These companies don't care It's about your ethics, not the company's. If you think the company is unethical, don't work for them.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > If you think the company is unethical, don't work for them Why would I do that? My ethics are that companies that do unethical things deserve to have other people harm the company in some way. That sounds like a way better way to retaliate against unethical companies. They deserve it, and it is a good thing to cause harm to groups that are doing bad things to others.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        I don't choose to be a person like that.
        stale2002 6y ago
        Ok, and because of that, your action will cause a huge amount of harm in the world because you let bad actors get away with bad things. My actions make the world a better place, and your actions make the world worse.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        > My actions make the world a better place Reneging on your agreement only benefits you, and only in the short term. In the long term, you'll acquire a reputation that you don't keep your word, and fewer and fewer people will want to do business with you. Even worse, they won't tell you why, and you'll be wondering why you've been shut out. More bluntly, my father told me that what separates men from animals is men have honor. Each of us gets to choose what we are.
- occz 6y ago
  > > If you, or the company, is in California go ahead and sign it. Non-competes are not valid or enforceable in the state of California. > Making an agreement you have no intention of adhering to is not ethical, regardless of whether the law backs you up or not. Non-compete clauses are unethical. Adding non-enforceable clauses is unethical. Both of the aforementioned points are made worse by the fact that the companies generally have more leverage + more ability to retain legal counsel, make it a lot worse, because that means that they most certainly knowingly do this. I wouldn't even excuse myself for signing something like this while knowing of its non-enforceability.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > Non-compete clauses are unethical. Adding non-enforceable clauses is unethical. Neither are unethical, as neither are misrepresentations or dishonest. There's no reason you cannot agree to terms that are unenforceable. People do it all the time. You do, too. The cost of breaking your word is not legal action, but the other party will consider you dishonorable. > Both of the aforementioned points are made worse by the fact that the companies generally have more leverage + more ability to retain legal counsel, make it a lot worse, because that means that they most certainly knowingly do this. If you're negotiating for a 6 figure job, you can afford $400 to have a lawyer review your contract. Keep in mind that the fact that you are offered more than minimum wage means you do have leverage. Even if you can't afford a lawyer, you can ask on HN :-) or at least google the clauses.
    - akarma 6y ago
      I don't know how much experience you have with dealing with companies' contracts. If you talk to a FAANG company about this and you aren't some famous rockstar engineer, they're going to just tell you that they won't remove any clauses. What then? Do you pass up a job offer...?
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        The ones I've done contracts with were all willing to negotiate. Have you tried it?
- nobodyandproud 6y ago
  An agreement goes both ways. If a company makes you sign something that it knows or should know is unenforceable, how is the company and its representatives being ethical?
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    Ethics aren't ethics if they are conditional on the other party being ethical.
    - nobodyandproud 6y ago
      Define “ethical”.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        LOL. Not taking the bait.
        nobodyandproud 6y ago
        That’s because there isn’t an ethical dilemma here, on the part of the employee. The unethical action here is insisting on such an agreement in the first place. Obeying or honoring an unethical agreement is what’s highly unethical; as it permits the abusive behavior. Hence California’s law.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Non-competes are not valid or enforceable in the state of California. The scope of legally valid noncompetes is narrower than California than many other places (but is not an empty set), but just because one of you or the company are in California doesn't mean that California law would be controlling when they tried to enforce this.
- danaliv 6y ago
  This is just a quick Google, not actual research, but there is at least one employment law firm online claiming that "only California courts are able to rule on non-compete issues within the state, and the courts can only do so using California law."[0] No idea what the basis for this claim is though, and I wouldn't be able to evaluate its strength even if I did know. It's also not clear if this is relevant to a situation where not everyone involved is in California, as you point out. Incidentally, there are some other surprisingly strong rights listed on that site, framed in such a way that suggests a law about this was enacted around 2017: "As of January 1, 2017, non-compete agreements in California must operate under these rules: "Employees can void any non-competes that require a court outside of California to decide disputes. In other words, the company cannot enforce an employee’s non-compete agreement in a state that allows these agreements. "Employees are able to void contracts with illegal non-compete terms. "Only California courts are able to rule on non-compete issues within the state, and the courts can only do so using California law. "Employees are able to receive compensation for their attorney’s fees if they have to go to court to stand up for themselves in a non-compete dispute. Employers cannot seek attorney’s fees from the employee, even if the employer wins." If true, this is all pretty amazing. 0. https://www.callahan-law.com/are-non-competes-enforceable-in-california/ https://www.callahan-law.com/are-non-competes-enforceable-in...

by loxias 6y ago

bombcar 6y ago

I wonder if that applies to ones signed outside of California but then the signee moves.

loxias 6y ago
I wonder too. Ask a lawyer! I've had the (dis)pleasure of dealing with employment lawyers, and it's amazing the stuff we don't know, that they do, and works in our favor.
wikibob 6y ago
From my research, agreements signed outside of California are enforceable via a court in that other state. Beware.

WalterBright 6y ago

> If you, or the company, is in California go ahead and sign it. Non-competes are not valid or enforceable in the state of California. Making an agreement you have no intention of adhering to is not ethical, regardless of whether the law backs you up or not. It's better to simply strike out that line and say it's not valid in California so why have it in the contract.

stale2002 6y ago
> Making an agreement you have no intention of adhering to is not ethical, regardless of whether the law backs you up or not. Yes it is. If a company is making its employees sign unethical agreements, then they deserve any negative consequence to that. Don't make your employees sign unethical agreements, if you don't want people to lie to you, and screw you over. Unironically, companies that do this, should be named and shamed, and everyone should take every legal option that they can get away with to screw over the company and the people who are making these decisions. > It's better to simply strike out that line and say it's not valid in California so why have it in the contract. Nope. Screw them over instead. They deserve it. Its legal, and they deserve to have negative consequences on them.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > Yes it is. Nobody made you sign it. Reneging on your agreement is dishonorable.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    No. The text is void. The law is that you agreed to a contract equivalent to one with that text crossed out. They knew it, you knew it, they knew you knew it, you knew they knew it. But actually do cross it out before signing, if that makes you feel any better.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      It's about your word, not the law. Although the law says that clause is not enforceable, that does not mean you cannot abide by the terms. I.e. reneging on your agreement is reneging on it, plain and simple. Signing the agreement knowing you're going to renege on it is unethical. > But actually do cross it out before signing, if that makes you feel any better. Man up and line it out if you aren't going to abide by it.
      - agildehaus 6y ago
        Most people are signing these agreements because the alternative is not to have a roof over your head or eat.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        Non-competes are for high value jobs. They're not starving.
        nobodyandproud 6y ago
        Non-competes are applied to fresh graduates on a regular basis, so that’s straight-out misinformation.
akarma 6y ago
Why is it not ethical? I would just sign it knowing that the law has you covered in case they (attempt to) take legal action against you in the future. These companies don't care if some of their contract is enforceable -- they want you to believe it is. They almost certainly know the law and know that it isn't enforceable, but it's still there for a reason.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > Why is it not ethical? Agreeing to something you have no intention of following through with is unethical. > These companies don't care It's about your ethics, not the company's. If you think the company is unethical, don't work for them.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > If you think the company is unethical, don't work for them Why would I do that? My ethics are that companies that do unethical things deserve to have other people harm the company in some way. That sounds like a way better way to retaliate against unethical companies. They deserve it, and it is a good thing to cause harm to groups that are doing bad things to others.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      I don't choose to be a person like that.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        Ok, and because of that, your action will cause a huge amount of harm in the world because you let bad actors get away with bad things. My actions make the world a better place, and your actions make the world worse.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        > My actions make the world a better place Reneging on your agreement only benefits you, and only in the short term. In the long term, you'll acquire a reputation that you don't keep your word, and fewer and fewer people will want to do business with you. Even worse, they won't tell you why, and you'll be wondering why you've been shut out. More bluntly, my father told me that what separates men from animals is men have honor. Each of us gets to choose what we are.
occz 6y ago
> > If you, or the company, is in California go ahead and sign it. Non-competes are not valid or enforceable in the state of California. > Making an agreement you have no intention of adhering to is not ethical, regardless of whether the law backs you up or not. Non-compete clauses are unethical. Adding non-enforceable clauses is unethical. Both of the aforementioned points are made worse by the fact that the companies generally have more leverage + more ability to retain legal counsel, make it a lot worse, because that means that they most certainly knowingly do this. I wouldn't even excuse myself for signing something like this while knowing of its non-enforceability.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > Non-compete clauses are unethical. Adding non-enforceable clauses is unethical. Neither are unethical, as neither are misrepresentations or dishonest. There's no reason you cannot agree to terms that are unenforceable. People do it all the time. You do, too. The cost of breaking your word is not legal action, but the other party will consider you dishonorable. > Both of the aforementioned points are made worse by the fact that the companies generally have more leverage + more ability to retain legal counsel, make it a lot worse, because that means that they most certainly knowingly do this. If you're negotiating for a 6 figure job, you can afford $400 to have a lawyer review your contract. Keep in mind that the fact that you are offered more than minimum wage means you do have leverage. Even if you can't afford a lawyer, you can ask on HN :-) or at least google the clauses.
  - akarma 6y ago
    I don't know how much experience you have with dealing with companies' contracts. If you talk to a FAANG company about this and you aren't some famous rockstar engineer, they're going to just tell you that they won't remove any clauses. What then? Do you pass up a job offer...?
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      The ones I've done contracts with were all willing to negotiate. Have you tried it?
nobodyandproud 6y ago
An agreement goes both ways. If a company makes you sign something that it knows or should know is unenforceable, how is the company and its representatives being ethical?
- WalterBright 6y ago
  Ethics aren't ethics if they are conditional on the other party being ethical.
  - nobodyandproud 6y ago
    Define “ethical”.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      LOL. Not taking the bait.
      - nobodyandproud 6y ago
        That’s because there isn’t an ethical dilemma here, on the part of the employee. The unethical action here is insisting on such an agreement in the first place. Obeying or honoring an unethical agreement is what’s highly unethical; as it permits the abusive behavior. Hence California’s law.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Non-competes are not valid or enforceable in the state of California. The scope of legally valid noncompetes is narrower than California than many other places (but is not an empty set), but just because one of you or the company are in California doesn't mean that California law would be controlling when they tried to enforce this.

danaliv 6y ago
This is just a quick Google, not actual research, but there is at least one employment law firm online claiming that "only California courts are able to rule on non-compete issues within the state, and the courts can only do so using California law."[0] No idea what the basis for this claim is though, and I wouldn't be able to evaluate its strength even if I did know. It's also not clear if this is relevant to a situation where not everyone involved is in California, as you point out. Incidentally, there are some other surprisingly strong rights listed on that site, framed in such a way that suggests a law about this was enacted around 2017: "As of January 1, 2017, non-compete agreements in California must operate under these rules: "Employees can void any non-competes that require a court outside of California to decide disputes. In other words, the company cannot enforce an employee’s non-compete agreement in a state that allows these agreements. "Employees are able to void contracts with illegal non-compete terms. "Only California courts are able to rule on non-compete issues within the state, and the courts can only do so using California law. "Employees are able to receive compensation for their attorney’s fees if they have to go to court to stand up for themselves in a non-compete dispute. Employers cannot seek attorney’s fees from the employee, even if the employer wins." If true, this is all pretty amazing. 0. https://www.callahan-law.com/are-non-competes-enforceable-in-california/ https://www.callahan-law.com/are-non-competes-enforceable-in...