Hacker News Reader

Comment by stale2002 | Hacker News Reader

stale2002

> 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.

View on HN

> Yes it is.

Nobody made you sign it. Reneging on your agreement is dishonorable.

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.

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.

Most people are signing these agreements because the alternative is not to have a roof over your head or eat.

Non-competes are for high value jobs. They're not starving.

Non-competes are being used everywhere: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/10/627682297/regulators-investig...

Non-competes are applied to fresh graduates on a regular basis, so that’s straight-out misinformation.

Fresh graduates often go into high paying jobs.

And also low paying. Those also get non-competes, because there are no downsides to forcing someone to sign.

It’s unethical.

They can also use google to answer questions about non-competes, which cost nothing. They can go to amazon and search for books "Employment Contracts" and get plenty of information. Their local public library would also be happy to help, for free.

The notion that a college graduate is a poor thing that can't discover basic information for free is ridiculous.

> It’s unethical.

Again, your ethics are about you, not somebody else.

My word is what I say to you, face to face.

Legal BS is legal BS. Putting BS terms in a contract amounts to a direct personal insult. Calling attention to a direct personal insult can be counterproductive, but signing it anyway is a way to spit on their insult, silently. Having disposed of that, you are on even terms again. You can trade unspoken insults day after day, if they like; each time you don't acknowledge one, it is one back. That is what we call business, in the modern US of A. It isn't necessary, or good, but those motivate only some Americans. They could choose to interact honorably any time they like, but they choose not to.

It is better to find circumstances where they do; but not everybody can, all the time. Nobody should need to suffer, or feel obliged to suffer, for being pinned where they cannot call out insults. Power imbalances are the norm, today. There is no possibility of free agreement, or of honor holding any meaning, under an enforced power imbalance. That should be as sad for them powerful as for us, but they never seem discomfited by it.

> where they cannot call out insults

I never suggested that. I specifically said call it out, line it out, and say you don't agree.

What? This doesn't read like English. It certainly doesn't address what I wrote.

Contracts are not oral they are based on legal agreements. They are court documents.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com