Hacker News Reader

Comment by CoolGuySteve | Hacker News Reader

I wish federal law would just abolish non-competes completely.

When I gave advanced notice to Tudor Investment that I would be quitting they threatened to fire me with cause so that they could still enforce the non-compete without paying me in accordance with NY state law.

And they followed through with their threat, sending me a letter telling me I was being terminated with cause the day I officially quit.

To make their shitty shenanigans worse, they made the unpaid non-compete just short enough so that it wouldn't be worth it to sue. The NY Department of Labor also doesn't handle complaints if you're salaried above a certain threshold.

Don't ever work for Tudor Investment, they're two-faced assholes, but I shouldn't be telling you that when the government should.

View on HN

My spouse's previous employer humiliated them at their job repeatedly, and then went for blood and sued under the non-compete when they took a job elsewhere to stop the abuse. It was totally vindictive and there was really nothing we could do, as they were a multi-billion dollar company and signaled they'd be happy to just keep spending money, even if they were losing, until they bankrupted us. $30,000 in legal fees later (which didn't even get us to discovery), we had to settle, giving them basically everything they wanted, including not allowing my spouse to work at all for three months, and then complete veto power over any job they took for the next year (including even flipping burgers). Seemed completely illegal for them to do that, but they just said, "fine, lets keep the lawsuit going then." We tried calling the state to see if there was anything they could do and were met with, "Huh, that sounds sucky. Bye."

I'd love to shame the company as you're doing, but we're legally bound by the settlement not to say anything about them but how great and wonderful they are as a company.

It seems a first step is to not tell your current employer where you're going next. If they push, just quit on the spot and cut-off communication. Maybe go a month or two without work; by then the old employer is less likely to care, you're old news by then. Be as boring and unmemorable as possible once you've decided to leave, aim so that nobody will even remember your name in 3 weeks (except for trusted friends and coworkers).

None of this is fool proof and requires savings, and I'm sorry if it seems like I'm victim blaming. As you point out, our legal system wont even reach discovery for $30,000, it's not a system of justice, it's a system of power, so do consider utilizing the power you have to keep quiet. "I'm quitting, I don't have another job lined up, but I might look around; oh yes, of course I'll follow the contract, but I'll seek my own counsel to advise me on how best to do so; goodbye". It's hard to imagine this could end up any worse than what you already experienced.

The employer was already way ahead of you. The original non-compete included a clause that you had 24 hours to inform the previous employer if you took another job at any company that could be seen as competing within a year of leaving. It's not a huge market, and they would have found out if we just didn't tell them. That would have probably gone even worse for us. Our best asset, though I guess not good enough, was that we hadn't been deceitful at all. The only other real choice we had was for my spouse to either not work for a year, or start a completely different career (giving up 30 years of experience in the field).

Thankfully now though, it's mostly all behind us. My spouse is in a new job in a company that the first employer gave the ok to, and in two more months a year has gone by, and they have no more hold over us at all.

The current employer doesn't actually know anything about the situations, as when my spouse took the job the lack of work for the previous three months was explained as, "I was unhappy at the previous job, and I took some time off and helped my aging parents get settled into a retirement home", which was all true. The new employer also wanted a non-compete signed and was a little confused why we pushed back so hard on it. They'd never seen anybody ask for changes in it. They agreed to some changes, but in the end really didn't want to make one that was compliant with state law. We settled for a written statement from their corporate council to our lawyer that said they understood it did not comply and was likely unenforceable.

Would you please spontaneously opine on some great and wonderful companies?

Heh, would love to! But honestly, I was so shell-shocked by the whole thing that I won't even take the chance.

Nah, don’t abolish them. Just require them to continue to pay the ex-employee for the duration, including bonuses and the equivalent of any commission earned if applicable. Fair is fair.

> The NY Department of Labor also doesn't handle complaints if you're salaried above a certain threshold.

Source?

https://dol.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/03/ls223.2.pd...

Labor Standards cannot accept every claim. Labor Standards will not accept claims if you:

- Worked as an executive, administrative, or professional employee and earned over $900 per week

Yikes. I could understand it if the limit was like $250k per year, but $900 per week is nuts.

Probably the law passed long enough ago that $46.8k was a high salary and it wasn't indexed for inflation.

Wait... Professional employee? So... Paid people need not apply? Or, is this some weird definition of professional that only applies to white collar jobs?

You know that limit was introduced because "most of the benefits of the labor standards board were going to the rich" or some BS like that.

Probably more via underfunding and civil servants wanting to focus on those that need it most.

Oof. Thank you.

Wow that is some BS

It's similar in Washington. If you make less than $116k, no non-competes. Otherwise, get fucked.

https://lni.wa.gov/workers-rights/workplace-policies/non-com...

How dare quants get paid $5m to sit on their couches for two years after leaving their firms! Congress must act!

Non-competes that pay you at or near your salary during garden leave are a different thing. The bog-standard non-compete in a normal SWE or IT position prohibits you from making a living at all.

The standard and legal minimum for WA employers is no compensation for the non-compete period. Also, the vast majority of workers that make more than $116k do not make $5 million annually, either before or after leaving their non-compete employer.

It would be 2.5 a year. Non competes are 2y across all of finance.

Gardening leave and non-competes are not the same. I doubt anyone feels any affronted by gardening leave.

> so that they could still enforce the non-compete without paying me in accordance with NY state law.

Could you elaborate on that part?

If you just ignore the non-compete, you can make them do the suing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com