I don't choose to be a person like that.
My actions make the world a better place, and your actions make the world worse.
Sounds like a vicious circle to me. Who is going to think that YOU "deserve it"?
Also, by choosing to work for a bad actor, you would be enabling them, purely out of a selfish motive.
People making ethical choices is one of the (many) things that make the world a better place.
It is ok to do wrong things against people who are doing bad things to you, yes.
The obvious example, would be you are being attacked, and you defend yourself with violence, which is normally "wrong".
> Who is going to think that YOU "deserve it"?
The other side is already engaging in these actions. Just accepting the bad actions against yourself, without a counter response, just leaves you open to being taken advantage of.
> People making ethical choices is one of the (many) things that make the world a better place.
Yes, and it is ethical to punish and retaliate against bad actors, so that they don't get away with the bad thing.
In the same way that it is ethical to defend yourself against assault, even though violence is normally wrong.
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.
Effectively none of these people have acquired a reputation that they are not keeping their word. (Indeed, voluntarily keeping their word would be illegal under the Fair Housing Act.) Just like I don't think anyone who has signed a contract with terms that aren't legally enforceable in CA has gotten a reputation for not keeping their word.
(A rare handful of people will back out once they find such restrictions exist, or exercise the recent right in some jurisdictions to disclaim those covenants.)
It's certainly true that covenants are much harder to change than an employment contract! But so far your argument hasn't been that simply signing a contract with an unenforceable term, where you know it's unenforceable, is unethical. You haven't placed a weight on the difficulty in making a change.
Going back to your original statement:
> say it's not valid in California so why have it in the contract
People move. I always thought that if I moved from CA to TX then such clause would be binding. 'Course, I am not a lawyer. But if most people hold my opinion then again, there's no chance of reputation loss here.
It is not illegal for the employee to adhere to the non-compete agreement.
One of the covenants I had to sign was that I would not run a business from home. I work from home.
I signed this knowing that it was not enforceable, because the party that could enforce it was the home owner's association which disbanded 30 years previous.
Did I renege on my agreement by signing something that I knew wasn't enforceable. I believe you think so. But did I acquire a reputation that I don't keep your word, because of that?
Not one bit. Neither did the other people in the neighborhood who ran a business from home.
Here's another: Some covenants prohibit accessory dwelling unit (ADU)s. CA Assembly Bill No. 670 made those void and unenforceable: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
> Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a planned development, and any provision of a governing document, that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use that meets the requirements of Section 65852.2 or 65852.22 of the Government Code, is void and unenforceable.
If I buy a house with a covenant which prohibits an ADU, knowing that that covenant is void and unenforceable, and with the intent of building a mother-in-law house in violation of that covenant, then am I being unethical? And should I gain a negative reputation for not keeping my word?
Consider the era between when the Supreme Court said they were unenforceable, and when the Federal government made voluntary adherence illegal.
Do you think it would have been unethical for someone in the 1950s to buy a house with a racially restrictive covenant, knowing that they were not going to follow that covenant when they sold it?
If your father had known that person in the 1950s, would he have said that selling the house to a black family gives them a deserved reputation of breaking their word?
Lastly, going back to CA-specific employment law - why can't I agree that if I move to another state then I can be subject to a non-compete agreement that was in the contract when I signed it while living in CA?
It's a little unfair to judge a 1950s person on modern ethical standards. But I'll take a stab. You can't line out a clause in the covenant like you can in a contract. But you can 1) refuse to buy it or 2) make it clear you'll fight it in court if you need to.
As for what my father would do, I don't know. But I do know that he'd judge a man by his honor, his acceptance of responsibility for his actions, and his performance of duty to his country. He did not judge a man by his color, uniform, nationality, etc. And it cost him his career in the Air Force, so he didn't take this lightly.
So would you father have respected someone who kept his word and judged a man by his color by not selling a house to him? Or would he have respected someone who willfully broke an unforceable agreement to discrimintate on the basis of race? I couldn't tell from your answer.
If I sign a contract with a non-compete clause in CA, where it's unenforceable, then move to TX with the same job, is that clause now enforceable?
If so, then how is it unethical to sign the contract?
EDIT: if it's little unfair to judge a 1950s person on modern ethical standards, then is not not also a little unfair to judge a modern person on your father's ethical standards?
Not playing by the rules of business is not honorable it's naive. A contract is a business agreement. If a provision isn't legal the contract usually asks that only that clause is removed enforcing the remaining contract. If something isn't enforceable in your opinion but the company is asking for it and refusing it could kill the deal it wouldn't make sense to threaten the deal over an issue you know will be resolved in your favor?
In reality companies who make you sign a non-compete will glady hire from an organzation they compete with.
If you somehow know the non-compete isn't enforceable and you don't tell them is that amoral?
Behaving ethically does not imply allowing others to treat you badly. Recall I wrote that you can simply line out that clause, and explain it is unenforceable and you won't abide by it. You are then on ethical ground. If that "kills the deal" then do you really want to work for them?
> In reality companies who make you sign a non-compete will glady hire from an organzation they compete with.
Your ethics are about you, not the other party.
> If you somehow know the non-compete isn't enforceable and you don't tell them is that amoral?
Sensible people run contracts by their own lawyer - the lawyer for the other party has a fundamental conflict of interest. If you're signing a contract for $150,000 a year, don't you agree it makes sense to drop $400 on a lawyer to check it? You'll get better advice than on HackerNews - and your lawyer will be ethically obliged to inform you about these things.
Besides, having unenforceable clauses in a contract is neither illegal nor unethical. It's just unenforceable. Not everyone needs the threat of civil court to keep their agreements.
If you and your employer don't feel you need one and can rely on ethics alone why sign?
I think the reason why companies want you sign one is because in the event of you leaving, companies can't enforce a word of mouth agreement in court.
Whatever is in your contract is what you agreed to but local laws might superseed your agreement. This doesn't make you amoral if you don't educate a company on local laws. This is solely the company's responsibility.
You get no hero points and your family is not better off. Telling a company their contract is not legal can be seen as a little rude and could give you a bad reputation.
It certainly is not the entire point. The larger point is to clarify exactly what is being agreed. Memories, even among honorable people, are faulty. People can also legitimately disagree on their interpretation of conversations as they are having them. Contracts confirm to each party what was agreed to.
Nobody's memory is good enough to run a business without writing down all the agreements. And even if memories are that good, that doesn't help when you're out of the office and someone else is running it.
> Telling a company their contract is not legal can be seen as a little rude and could give you a bad reputation.
It is not rude to say "I don't agree with that term and it is unenforceable anyway so let's just line it out." It is rude to agree to something you have no intention of adhering to, and you will acquire a bad reputation for doing it.
Why bother signing them?
It signifies that both parties read, understand, and agree. This is so there are no bent feelings later when two perfectly honorable people disagree on what was agreed upon.
When you are fighting a power inbalance guile is a very effective tool and nobel trait.
In the long term the world would be better off if companies that are doing bad things get negative consequences.
So that is good, not bad. If more people punished bad actors, it would be better.
> fewer and fewer people will want to do business
More people causing negative consequences to bad companies is a good thing though!
> Each of us gets to choose what we are
And everyone choosing to cause damage to bad actors is a good thing.
You choose to let them get away with bad actions, and the other people who actually want to make the world a better place choose to correctly cause consequences on bad actors.
The "animals" are the people who stand by and do nothing against bad actors.
> You choose to let them get away with bad actions
Nope. I said line it out.
> More people causing negative consequences to bad companies is a good thing though!
Behaving unethically makes you just as bad.
Companies that screw over employees do though.
A better example would be tipping your hat to an assaulter, who mugs people. I would not respect someone who attacks others with physical violence.
> Nope. I said line it out.
And then they refuse to hire you, and hire someone else. That makes it pretty likely that they would get away with it, and screw over a different employee.
> Behaving unethically makes you just as bad.
Lets say you live in a medieval village, where there is a racist law that makes it legal for people to steal from or assault others, if they are of a certain race.
So if you see a thief, currently mugging or attacking someone, then you would be just as bad as the thief if you engaged in self defense to stop them then? Because violence is bad?
You would not only refuse to defend someone else from the thief, you would tip your hat to the assaulter! No. I a not going to respect the attacker.
Yeah no. Defending others against a thief is a good thing, not a bad thing, even if we live in some world where the attacker is not engaging in any illegal actions.
Again, it's not about the prostitute or what they deserve. It's about YOU.
You want to be a good guy with that clause? Line the clause out. Agreeing to something with your fingers crossed behind your back is dishonest and cowardly.
So then if a mugger is attacking someone, you think that we should tip our hat at the mugger, and walk by?
No. I think that I should stop them from attacking others, and I am not going to respect the attacker, even if I lived in a society where it was legal for a mugger to attack others.
Even though violence is "wrong" in general, it is not wrong to use violence to defend others who are being attacked by a mugger.
> You want to be a good guy with that clause? Line the clause out.
Thats like saying that if you are being attacked by a mugger, you should just run away, even if you think that mugger is going to hurt someone else in the future.
No. The good thing to do is to take actions to stop the mugger from attacking you as well as other people, even if we live in some weird society where it is legal to assault others.
> Agreeing to something with your fingers crossed behind your back is dishonest and cowardly.
Using violence against others is normally a bad thing, but it is a good thing to do it in order to protect others.
The same thing applies to the original situation.
Do you not see that the symbolism you are building here correlates with you joining the mugger in their current actions (mugging), then possibly somewhere down the road betraying the mugger? How does that make you better than them?
I feel like you are trying to justify a selfish decision.
Have you now backed off completely on your point about tipping hats to people?
Because previously you started saying how we should respect everyone. Do you now agree that we should not do that, to muggers, for example, and that it is totally OK to go back on your word against someone trying to attack you?
* An example of how someone might betray a mugger, would be if you promise them that you will go home and get them money, if they let you keep your phone, and then you "betray" them by going back on your word, and escaping instead. (Lets assume you can get away with this easily in this hypothetical, and that mugging isn't illegal, lol) *
Whether or not someone's actions help the company/mugger engage in bad actions is a separate discussion.
It is a completely different argument to say "You should not betray your word to a company giving you an immoral contract" as compared to your new argument of "You should not work for companies that give non-competes, because non-competes are evil".
Previously, you were making it seem like the evil act here, is betraying the company. And now you are switching it up and saying that the evil act is working for the company at all.
So, once again, do you now agree with me that we should not respect everyone, such as muggers, and that it is not immoral to betray, for example, muggers?