Comment by WalterBright | Hacker News Reader

Comment by WalterBright | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Not playing by the rules of business is not honorable it's naive.

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.

The entire point of a contract is to have a document that can be brought to civil court.

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.

> The entire point of a contract is to have a document that can be brought to civil court.

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.

In your opinion the main purpose of a contract is a memory aid?

Why bother signing them?

> 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.

That's fair. I would go work for a competitor and not feel less honorable because I know that company would hire someone from the very same company I now work at and not feel they have done anything wrong.

When you are fighting a power inbalance guile is a very effective tool and nobel trait.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com