Hacker News Reader

Comment by infogulch | Hacker News Reader

> [in France] you need to be paid during the non compete period (at least 1/3 of your compensation or something like this)

Oh that's interesting. That is the first time I've seen a justifiable contractual consideration on the employer's side for a non-compete.

View on HN

It’s the same rule as California… you can have a non-compete, but that time has to be paid for separately than your normal wages.

This is probably one of the biggest reasons I'm unlikely to leave the state until other parts of the US make similar determinations. It boggles me that we allow employers to have so much control over an employees life after they have left said organization.

We almost had the same in Washington state until the big tech companies lobbied (i.e. bribed) corrupt politicians for the law to only apply to those earning under $100k.

https://lni.wa.gov/workers-rights/workplace-policies/Non-Com...

So non-competes are only for people who can afford a house. I guess it makes sense to give up some freedom for the privilege of owning property.

The reasoning obviously is to protect low earners from employers who abuse non-competes. Non-competes are not a complete insanity, as long as the workforce they apply to has (pragmatically, not just theoretically) the ability to chose where to work. And of course they have to acquire some transferable skills or knowledge thanks to their employment.

These things are generally very unlikely to happen when the employee is a low earner.

The fact that California has no problem with pumping out innovation and globally important companies even with a total non compete ban shows that there is zero reason for any employer to have that additional power over an employee. I would even say the non compete ban contributes to CA’s success.

To really drive home how much of an advantage employers have, even with a non compete ban, employers in California were found to be colluding to suppress employees’ wages.

https://www.latimes.com/80014970-132.html

For all but some very egregious cases this will not be enforced. AWS lost a bunch of VP-level execs and they went to work at Microsoft... If they didn't use it against them they won't use it against anyone.

I agree, but it's still problematic. A couple concerns off the top of my head:

1. This can impact behavior of the labor force despite lack of enforcement. Not everyone can afford to pay a lawyer to review their employment contract, and not everyone will have the knowledge to know if such terms are applicable or enforceable to their situation. This causes fear and hesitancy which in turn drives behavior and decision making.

2. If you're unfortunate enough, there's nothing stopping a company from attempting to make an example out of you. Even knowing it's unlikely a former employer will come after you, why should individuals be forced to take on that risk to earn a living?

You really have to “be somebody” in order to have a non-compete enforced against you. If you’re like most people the company you left couldn’t care less where you go. Yes yes, there’s exceptions, but in general they’re rarely enforced.

But if your old boss was a total dick and that's why you left then he might try to enforce it. Leaving yourself open to expensive legal action isn't smart. Even though they would likely lose the case (noncompetes are on shaky legal footing) you still lose many hours and legal fees fighting it.

Even being 'somebody' may not enforce it. A few years ago Salesforce hired so many execs from Microsoft that it looked like there's no end to it.

I am French and discovered a few years ago that a non-compete could be one-sided.

I saw that on an offer and asked about the compensation, ready to negotiate at least 50% pay for that part.

The person on the other side was surprised, also when I asked if anyone actually signs this.

I do not understand how a non-compete compete for key people can be one sided.

I've heard of them in finance in the states, mostly, but I believe they do exist.

This is common in the financial industry above a certain level; it's called "garden leave".

No; that's different from a non-compete. The practice of "gardening leave" is giving an employee a relatively long notice period (say, 3 months). If the employee gives notice, the employer tells them to stay home during the notice period; they are still technically employed during that period, however.

Gotcha; never been subject to gardening leave myself, but I always assumed it exists for the same purpose as a noncompete, i.e. to provide a 'cooling off' period to lessen the competitive impact that the exiting employee can have by switching to another firm. I assumed that since it's been around a while in finance that the "paid noncompete" idea became a negotiated part of the comp.

So funny to hear this. 3 month notice periods (in either direction) are bog standard in parts of Europe. And it's entirely normal to just keep working, training your replacement/finishing off stuff.

I'm not sure that's quite the same (no clue if the garden leave terminology is used in the parts of Europe you refer to). https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gardening-leave.asp

That's my point about it being funny. In one place a 3 month notice period is considered a gardening leave for special higher level employees and you still basically get escorted out of the building.

In other parts of the world it is just the bog standard notice period and nobody is escorted out of any building and expected to keep working during that 3 month period.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com