WeWork Backs Down on Employee Noncompete Requirements
npr.org
npr.org
This is odd to me, because the people I know who work for them love their job and employer, but it seems like they're moving down a dark path...
It has all the trappings of a cult. It is well known that cults use a low-protein diet for indoctrination. http://www.leaderu.com/common/cults.html
You can be on a diet of beef and pork, get plenty of protein, and still be undernourished.
The morally reprehensible thing about a non-compete for a barista or janitor is that the knowledge of how to make coffee or clean is widely available and unless WeWork has some kind of proprietary technique for cleaning offices the non-compete is really a form of indentured servitude. And assuming there's no particular consideration given to what would happen to the janitor or barista should they lose their job and not be able to find similar work it's the kind of contract that should be illegal. It also makes me glad that I asked my employer to hold off on leasing an office for me from WeWork as I don't like doing business with companies that are that predatory.
But there's nothing particularly cult-like about it.
I have a genetic disorder. I need about 1.5 to 2x as much nutrients as normal people to not be malnourished. I eat smaller portions of meat than your standard American diet and some of my meals are meatless. My meat-and-potatoes relatives have accused me of being vegetarian because of it. I've improved my overall nutritional status while eating semi-vegetarian by American standards.
Some B vitamins are a serious problem for some vegetarians. But you would really have to be doing something wrong to not be getting adequate protein eating vegetarian.
That isn't particularly surprising to me. Not because of anything specific to WeWork, but just because of general tech industry dynamics. Job advertisements want people who are "passionate", who "believe", who want to "change the word". We have had decades of "holy wars" and quasi-religious behavior, starting with editor choice [1] and OS [2], going up to the present moment [3][4].
It's pretty common for exposes of tech companies to talk about cult-like behavior. E.g., Dan Lyons on Hubspot [5] or John Carreyou on Theranos [6]. I don't think all startups are this way, or even most of them. But the seeds of cult-ish behavior are clearly commonplace. E.g., charismatic leaders, a group dedicated to a non-mainstream vision, people spending a lot of intense time together, hazy boundaries, top-down power structures, and a lot of young, impressionable people.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor_war
[2] https://tidbits.com/1995/06/26/computings-holy-war/
[3] https://www.recode.net/2018/5/30/17386068/brad-garlinghouse-...
[4] https://www.recode.net/2017/12/6/16680816/elon-musk-spacex-t...
[5] https://www.amazon.com/Disrupted-My-Misadventure-Start-Up-Bu...
[6] https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/07/theranos-elizabeth-holmes...
They have a barely functioning mobile app and portal, but that's about it. Even the IT (which I wouldn't even count towards them being a tech company) seemed ridiculously broken at the locations I've been staying in the past.
Their business is built on the deployment of custom (if not particularly sexy) office technology and quite simply could not exist without it. There's also another certain very significant tech company they outright acquired to enhance their overall operations and portfolio.
So - they're not a traditional tech-only company; but a tech company quite definitely.
A successful tech company, through and through.
In that sense every company is a tech company. Like if McDonalds “deploys” custom deep fryers are they a tech company too?
Okay, but this reads as non-sequiter because a lack of meat in a diet does not mean that the diet is one with low-protein consumption. Certainly if one is determined to be protein deficient then cutting out some food that is high in protein would be beneficial for their goal, but that's like saying if you don't use git you are managing a project wrong and aren't using version control. If you didn't want to use version control, then that would mean you wouldn't use git, but not using git doesn't mean you don't use VC.
Wow. I am speechless. I am without speech.
There are health and religious reasons why one may want to eat meat, but also vegetarianism for environmental reasons is a fairly US/Euro-centric phenomenon, and doesn’t have anywhere near the same following in parts of Africa, Asia, and other places.
Here’s a good thread on the topic: https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/100636379997523148...
Because of the vegetarianism thing, everyone was forced to eat WeWork-provided food, sans meat (though fish is okay!). This totally broke my ketogenic diet, which made me quite mad. See other comments about this being a form of group control.
For the first day and a half, we were subjected to a number of corporate "talks" which largely revolved around the cult of personalities of Adam Neumann and Miguel McKelvey. Adam Neumann particularly styles himself a televangelis or Jesus-wannabe and walks out into the audience, asking people about their deepest fears, delivering some ersatz corprorate sermon on the mount. There is no "me", only "we".
See also the time when Rebecca Neumann commands the gathered WeWorkers to hold hands, close their eyes, and pray.
Or the time that Deepak Chopra comes out and shows a disturbing video about childbirth (people were like, "is this an anti-abortion video?) and talks about how evolution and child development are intimately related, and how we should take our shoes off to let the ions flow, and leads a meditation session.
A fish rots from the head down, and this is one crazy fish.
Absolutely infuriating. As a diabetic a high-protein diet is just about the best thing for me. I'd quit on the spot.
GL!!
I prefer keto diets too, but I think this would piss me off way more. I have really bad OCD. I wash my hands a lot; coworkers notice. I'm already self conscious about it. I can go camping but it takes a lot of mental prep (and I typically throw everything in the wash or away when I get home).
If a company forced me to camp like that .. da fuck?!
Not to mention everything else about that sounds pretty insane too.
Have you considered leaking to like techcrunch or something? Hell even a major paper would probably take it up.
People who have the audacity to do big things are frequently not reasonable people at all, and many times can be quite wacky. Sometimes this turns out well, like with Isaac Newton and Nikola Tesla. Other times this turns out very badly, like with Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler.
https://theoutline.com/post/6133/the-keto-diet-is-a-recipe-f...
The rest of what you describe sounds like a nightmare though.
I mean, I won't hold it against any individual to be into Deepak Chopra, I won't even hold it against a company of 100 people to invite Deepak Chopra provided the employees are aware that the company has a New Age vibe, a subtle scent of potpourri that just never goes away. 5000+ people though? Holy crap.
If you’re a devout believer in religion A and your employer forces you - unknown to you at the time you were hired - to attend religious ceremonies of religion B as a condition of your continued employment - that is surely massively illegal
I've refused to sign non-competes myself, and have written about it previously[1]. In the past it really hasn't been a problem. People have typically changed their contracts when I bring it up. But in the past year, I had to walk away from two different jobs because of their refusal to remove non-compete language from their contracts.
Are there any groups working on getting national/federal regulations changed to invalidate or ban non-compete agreements? I'd want to contribute to such causes.
[1]: https://penguindreams.org/blog/why-i-dont-sign-non-competes/
I don't know if there are, but the idea seems like a complete non-starter in the USA. I don't see any reason to forbid two willing parties from entering into an agreement that includes a non-compete provision.
I can maybe see some rationale for restrictions in standard employment situations. But for contract work? If you don't like the terms, don't accept.
Because they're inherently abusive, and there's absolutely nothing in it for the employee? I mean, when you have a sandwich shop pushing non-competes on their employees, then you know they are fucking nuts.
Right now the employer can claim that your severance pay is your consideration for the noncompete period.
Basically, if the non-compete clause actually cost them something, you would only see it in cases where it mattered.
In cases of layoffs (vs resignation) where severance would be due non-competes are almost always voided. You would only see it if the severance package were substantial.
Please, this is a very old topic.
The way society is currently configured, at some point, for all practical purposes, you are effectively forced to take some kind of job. Or see your life turn into living hell in a whole bunch of ways. Which means that the idea that both parties are truly "willing" parties (let alone have more or less equal leverage in) the negotiation, at the very least -- needs to be radically revisited.
But for contract work? If you don't like the terms, don't accept.
"And don't pay the rent, and don't feed your kids" you mean.
Work contracts are not a negotiation. There is no back and fourth to an agreement. I've gotten non-competes removed from some contracts, but I'm an exception because 1) I'm in IT and highly skilled and 2) I actually read my contracts.
And even then, in two cases they wouldn't change anything about the contracts and I had to walk from those jobs. Anyone who doesn't work in tech or another high income job does NOT have that option.
Work contracts in western countries are rarely ever between equal parities.
If you do see the reason for any of those things, then surely you can see it's just a question of where the line is best drawn to create a just society.
Noncompetes are terrible and places without them do very well, California being the best example. Everyone should work to get rid of them.
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.
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.
We needed a VP to approve every code change. Fortunately, I had three of them on my team of five.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, especially those who would benefit.
> Poor? it's simple, just get an ivy league degree in engineering and get hired at [insert big tech company here]
I think the very simplest step to remedying labor-capitalist relations in the US is to change the corporate mandate to maximizing worker quality of life instead of maximizing shareholder value. This would basically mean that corporate boards would be > 50% workers and that work (earned income) would always be taxed less than capital gains (unearned income). This could be obtained through unions or by new legislation at the state/federal level. Richard Wolff has many videos on YouTube about it.
Unfortunately since this is the US of A, democracy has been conflated with capitalism and most people seem to have forgotten that our country was founded on the principle of no taxation without representation. I argue that since wages are so low now, we're all paying an effective 50% tax to the private sector, which gets vacuumed up by the very wealthy or moved out of the country to exploit even poorer people. Our income goes to rents, school (which used to be public), medical care (which is public in most other countries), etc etc etc. It would be more profitable for the middle class to do these workplace reforms and make 2-4 times as much income at a slightly higher tax rate than we have now.
The above is the most logical, succinct way I can put it, because I have firsthand experience in how the current system isn't working and isn't sustainable. And I've had it relatively easy compared to people struggling with 2-3 jobs and children to support. But the level of vitriol I get from friends and family that agree with me on most things (except politics!) is just incredible.
WeWork wants to prevent people from even being able to transfer to the company they contract out to after firing people, is my belief.
At what point do we call this what it is: bullying.
> Garden leave describes the practice whereby an employee leaving a job – having resigned or otherwise had their employment terminated – is instructed to stay away from work during the notice period, while still remaining on the payroll. [...] Employees continue to receive their normal pay during garden leave and must adhere to their conditions of employment, such as confidentiality, at least until their notice period expires.
TIL: Non-compete clauses are the devil and actively screw people over.
I called Bullshit! It explicitly excludes your California office! Don't try to lie to me!
They would almost certainly fall apart in court, but the systems they disrupt don’t survive long enough to move them into court.
This stuff happens, unfortunately.
It requires doctors to relocate to another state entirely to practice especially if what they do is specialized.
Non-competes are unenforceable because you cannot take away someone's right to work. I'm talking even about switching to your previous employer's competitor. Say you're a software engineer with a lot of domain knowledge on heavy construction. And that employer lets you go (for whatever reason). If there's one other heavy construction company within driving distance hiring software engineers, neither the state nor your previous employer can keep you from using your talents to make a living for yourself.
The only exception is in NDA's. You can't take proprietary information with you, whether it's source code or sales leads.
And the definition of reasonable duration or reasonable geographic limits depends on the job and the industry.
almost but not quite.
> there is zero legitimate reason that an employer should have any say whatsoever on what someone does after that employer stops paying them.
Agreed.
However, non-competes make prefect sense when a company is bought/sold. If I own a Marketing firm, and sell it to you, it would be perfectly reasonable, as part of that sale, for you to require me to sign a non-compete. Otherwise I could rent an office across town, call up all my old customers (the ones you just payed a lot of money to get) and convince them to switch to my new company and leave you high and dry.
Ironically, this happens fairly regularly. Companies will hire someone because of their "Rolodex", and the hope / belief / nudge wink that they will do exactly that, bring "their" customers to you.