Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnopgnip | Hacker News Reader

CA employment law does not allow a company to universally ban moonlighting and fire you unlike most other states. They can only do that if it interferes with your work, or it creates a conflict of interest

View on HN

Typically employees are prohibited from simultaneously working for competing companies, due to conflicts of interest.

Do you think that an Uber driver driving for Lyft can be construed as a "conflict of interest"?

Not any more than working part time at, say, two different restaurants, which is common.

It appears that it is legal for employers in California to prohibit their employees from working for competitors, as an explicitly defined exception to its Moonlighting law.

The letter and spirit of the law are two different things though.

The letter of the law is how lawsuits are won.

Working for a competitor is not automatically a conflict of interest. Working at two restaurants, or two retail stores, or driving passengers would all likely not be a conflict of interest

That's not what someone paying on a W2 basis is going to say. Is this is a winning arguement in front of a jury? I worked for company A and then started working for company B - their direct and primary competitor (!!) AT THE SAME TIME I WAS WORKING AND GETTING PAID by company a(uber and lyft drivers drive for both at same time).

Even if not at the same time, if Company A is having to pay for the vehicle or whatever other costs and equipment are being used - in what world can someone driving the comcast truck start installing for AT&T?

This logic is so twisted.

Legally there is a big difference between using your personal car and getting reimbursed, and working for two different companies at different times throughout the same day, and working for two companies at the same time. If you are not handling trade secrets or making decisions for the business a conflict of interest is much less likely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com