Story time for NC's. I had a doctor that lived near me working at a medical clinic that got bought up by PE. He signed the new contract with them and kept working for a while, but decided he needed to move for one reason or another. After he quits, PE informs him of the NC in the new contract he signed, and that he wouldn't be able to practice medicine for N years (I think it was something like 5). He ended up hanging himself, and in response, the clinic's staff quit en masse and basically dared the PE company to try and enforce the clause. PE backed down because suing all the doctors individually would have cost too much and it would have been awful PR for the practice. They ended up selling the clinic before the year was out.
Non-competes in finance almost always come with compensation during the defined period.
The idea that a company can restrict at-will employee’s post-separation employment is absurd if they aren’t compensating the individual.
In many US states and countries outside the US, the enforcement of non-competes is very very hard. The problem is that they create a RISK of enforcement.
Executive level non-competes are probably the most damaging for the overall economy though.
If there's a market-dominating company, and execs are allowed to leave said company, start a competitor, get some investor dollars behind them, then start poaching employees from the old company, the market can have a really viable competitor quite quickly.
Without that ability, little monopolies spring up throughout the economy and use their size to crush upstarts, under-compensate their employees, overcharge their customers, and squeeze their suppliers.
Banning non-competes is an absolute requirement for free-market capitalism to function properly.
Salient arguments, although I am personally of the belief that limited non-competes make some sense, at least in the US, at least in some fields.
One of the other respondents mentioned one of the main issues with a DIY attitude towards modifying NCDs is the advent of digital signing of NCDs now, and I concur that NC documents really should be paper (though I can see an argument for adding a blockchain-like element/step with a digitized document that would capture the crossed-out sections). I used to deal with sections of NC forms I did not like this way myself.
A lot of people don't like non-competes but I think people give them a bad reputation sometimes. Not when they are being abused (like the case of the doctor and PE mentioned elsewhere, and as I said in some cases NCs make little sense to me; if it is isn't research-related, and/or doesn't involve some sort of patent or novel procedure or tech or research, it clearly makes less sense), but certainly when they serve to prevent people from running off and starting a new company and competing with the company they just left (e.g., how the AI field especially is getting very glutty and 'competitive' now; it resembles less of a free-market and more like Battle Royale in ways).
Pretty sure non-competes prevent economic collapses, layoffs and bankruptcies for many companies.
The danger is abuse of them, not their existence. I don't think banning them outright is good. Especially in Fintech, which is a field rife with moral and ethical quandaries.
I do want to point out that it irks me when people make a big deal complaining about a non-compete afterwards, when they know they signed a non-compete prior to a meeting or job or role somewhere. Part of the point of non-competes is that generally the people that want you to sign them know there is a reason you would want to talk about something or use it elsewhere.
Abuse should be prevented and preventable by both sides of the non-compete and NDA processes though.
Should someone be prevented from working with models after working with them at another company? Maybe. If you sign and say yes and you are paid (even if it is not after you leave; you were given notice, though clearly you may not like it; the ability to renegotiate should exist before leaving), then, like it or not, you signed it. But a better approach is just more specific NC clauses (specific sorts of models or specific fields being ruled out, not the whole shebang).
But as I said, I see good reasons for them existing.
These are often not disclosed until you start. Day 1 'paperwork' that drastically changes the agreed upon terms of employment well after you have left a previous position. In some cases they are even forced on you after having worked somewhere for a while and future employment is predicated on them. They are evil. I almost quit my job over this, but of course how can you afford to not work while searching? And searching while out of work is far harder than while still working. We need penalties on companies that do this, not just a ban. 'Sign this or you are fired' documents after you are hired should have repercussions.
Sadly Amazon has been known to enforce its 18-month NC in WA state (not sure if they’ve ever prevailed in court). They will absolutely not negotiate on this.
In all cases where I was presented with an unreasonable non-compete, I either negotiated it away or scratched it out before signing. I know not everyone has that luxury, but if your BATNA is signing, it's worth a shot.
no, as in physical contracts you _can_ scratch something out on are becoming rare. Usally some fuckass digital signing service or another, tgat barely works on chrome let alone firefox.
I’d be fine signing a non compete if they ever offered anything in return. If they want me to stay out of the market for a period of time, they better pay garden leave or SOME sort of consideration
I don't think I can live outside of California at this point
I don’t even negotiate these clauses I just have so much assurance the state is going to throw out the case that I just let the client shoot themselves in the foot, and silently get invested in seeing which other ways they’ll mess up
i think you underestimate the starting capital required to be able to stand with principles in the modern world. I'm lucky to be in such a position, but I'm also aware few are.
You don't need money to live a principled life. Change your life lens. Seek the truth, change the company. There are several places that don't ask you to compromise your morals or principles. Be in touch with principled people, learn from them. I never care about money and so I never have it but I have never been found wanting when I need it. God will make it happen. No worries.
i rarely use ai, however i must constantly sift through ai blog posts like this one to find actual communication. should i leave the internet to win the game against ai? well i did the next best thing and got a nokia brick phone, yet facebook still knows how to recommend those i meet in real life!! i tried not playing but im still in the game. does that mean the only way i can win is to kill myself?
> yet facebook still knows how to recommend those i meet in real life!!
Meta is an awful company but they don't have Enemy of the State level surveillance.
If you met someone in real life and then Facebook recommended them to you the leak here was almost certainly a human one, eg. the person you met googled you and clicked your Facebook profile when it showed up (while they themselves were logged into Facebook) and that's how Facebook made the connection.
So don't kill yourself. Life is very short anyway, enjoy the absurdity of it while you can.
i was verbally introduced to somebody (that i have 1 mutual friend with) for a grand total of 30 seconds, facebook knew about it an hour later. nobody involved used their phones much during that hour. based on this occurence, facebooks intrusiveness is clearly deep enough. i appreciate the advice not to commit suicide - another responder was correct that i would be digitally resurrected as a pure profit vehicle anyway
Rather than asking him the question of why in a simple rudimentary form, give the guy motivation to quit facebook instead. Facebook employs guilt tactics about people they know to get them to stay, and if they quit, they're likely to go back because of in person connections. By sounding condescending, the person you're replying to is likely to justify staying rather than quitting.
i think your advice would apply in a standard human situation where optimal communication requires decoration, in this scenario i reciprocated the communication format which indicates acceptance
i have an account from when i was a teenager that i sometimes use to talk to family. why do you ask? based on my anecdote we are all tracked by facebook, whether or not we are on facebook.
well you were asking how to get out of the game. leaving facebook is one of the necessary steps. it may not be enough, and some things from you may still be tracked by meta, but less is better. it's as simple as that. i do have sympathy with the fact that sometimes you just can't avoid it though. if you have family members that absolutely refuse to talk to you in any other way for example. so i ask to reflect if you really need it, or if you can find other ways to stay in touch with your family. (but the key point is the reflection, i am not expecting you to find a solution right away. the point is: always be aware why you are making that tradeoff. i would be on facebook too if i had people there that are important to me and that i could not reach any other way. i do know some people that are on facebook that i would like to be in contact with, so i can sympathize.)
It was confusing hearing that Facebook was recommending people to you when you made it sound like you were choosing to opt out of those things.
I am not sure how your anecdote would show you are all tracked by Facebook even if you aren't on facebook; you only received recommendations for people to friend on facebook because you are on facebook. I am not on facebook, so i have never had facebook recommend anyone to me.
my phone cant run facebook. by choosing this phone i am opting not to have facebook track me on a constant basis. however, based on whatever signals are available to everyone elses phones, facebook still tracks me. and facebook is doing the same to everybody including you - not sure if youre aware of the concept of shadow profiles?
Story time for NC's. I had a doctor that lived near me working at a medical clinic that got bought up by PE. He signed the new contract with them and kept working for a while, but decided he needed to move for one reason or another. After he quits, PE informs him of the NC in the new contract he signed, and that he wouldn't be able to practice medicine for N years (I think it was something like 5). He ended up hanging himself, and in response, the clinic's staff quit en masse and basically dared the PE company to try and enforce the clause. PE backed down because suing all the doctors individually would have cost too much and it would have been awful PR for the practice. They ended up selling the clinic before the year was out.
FYI - there are already a few states that don't allow companies to enforce such draconian noncompetes.
Moving to California is better than killing yourself most of the time.
Clearly something else was going on. No mentally healthy person would kill themself because of this.
You are clearly incapable of putting yourself in the shoes of someone who is being told they cannot pursue their vocation for half a decade.
There's a strong argument to be made that the banning of non-competes is the main reason California is the software capital of the world.
Non-competes in finance almost always come with compensation during the defined period.
The idea that a company can restrict at-will employee’s post-separation employment is absurd if they aren’t compensating the individual.
In many US states and countries outside the US, the enforcement of non-competes is very very hard. The problem is that they create a RISK of enforcement.
By some logic:
* If they want to tell someone personally what to do or not to do, is some form of employment.
* If it is not paid, it can be considered slavery.
* It is usually possible to quit jobs.
Executive level non-competes are probably the most damaging for the overall economy though.
If there's a market-dominating company, and execs are allowed to leave said company, start a competitor, get some investor dollars behind them, then start poaching employees from the old company, the market can have a really viable competitor quite quickly.
Without that ability, little monopolies spring up throughout the economy and use their size to crush upstarts, under-compensate their employees, overcharge their customers, and squeeze their suppliers.
Banning non-competes is an absolute requirement for free-market capitalism to function properly.
Salient arguments, although I am personally of the belief that limited non-competes make some sense, at least in the US, at least in some fields.
One of the other respondents mentioned one of the main issues with a DIY attitude towards modifying NCDs is the advent of digital signing of NCDs now, and I concur that NC documents really should be paper (though I can see an argument for adding a blockchain-like element/step with a digitized document that would capture the crossed-out sections). I used to deal with sections of NC forms I did not like this way myself.
A lot of people don't like non-competes but I think people give them a bad reputation sometimes. Not when they are being abused (like the case of the doctor and PE mentioned elsewhere, and as I said in some cases NCs make little sense to me; if it is isn't research-related, and/or doesn't involve some sort of patent or novel procedure or tech or research, it clearly makes less sense), but certainly when they serve to prevent people from running off and starting a new company and competing with the company they just left (e.g., how the AI field especially is getting very glutty and 'competitive' now; it resembles less of a free-market and more like Battle Royale in ways).
Pretty sure non-competes prevent economic collapses, layoffs and bankruptcies for many companies.
The danger is abuse of them, not their existence. I don't think banning them outright is good. Especially in Fintech, which is a field rife with moral and ethical quandaries.
I do want to point out that it irks me when people make a big deal complaining about a non-compete afterwards, when they know they signed a non-compete prior to a meeting or job or role somewhere. Part of the point of non-competes is that generally the people that want you to sign them know there is a reason you would want to talk about something or use it elsewhere.
Abuse should be prevented and preventable by both sides of the non-compete and NDA processes though.
Should someone be prevented from working with models after working with them at another company? Maybe. If you sign and say yes and you are paid (even if it is not after you leave; you were given notice, though clearly you may not like it; the ability to renegotiate should exist before leaving), then, like it or not, you signed it. But a better approach is just more specific NC clauses (specific sorts of models or specific fields being ruled out, not the whole shebang).
But as I said, I see good reasons for them existing.
These are often not disclosed until you start. Day 1 'paperwork' that drastically changes the agreed upon terms of employment well after you have left a previous position. In some cases they are even forced on you after having worked somewhere for a while and future employment is predicated on them. They are evil. I almost quit my job over this, but of course how can you afford to not work while searching? And searching while out of work is far harder than while still working. We need penalties on companies that do this, not just a ban. 'Sign this or you are fired' documents after you are hired should have repercussions.
Thankful that California banned them, others should follow suit.
Sadly Amazon has been known to enforce its 18-month NC in WA state (not sure if they’ve ever prevailed in court). They will absolutely not negotiate on this.
[delayed]
In all cases where I was presented with an unreasonable non-compete, I either negotiated it away or scratched it out before signing. I know not everyone has that luxury, but if your BATNA is signing, it's worth a shot.
Easier to do when there's paper to scratch.
I wonder if anyone has tried presenting an “Artist Rider” to similar effect.
If they've not offered you anything, the non compete is certainly not valid.
I think the implication is that it’s easier to modify paper than a Docusign form where the only option is “click here to sign”
no, as in physical contracts you _can_ scratch something out on are becoming rare. Usally some fuckass digital signing service or another, tgat barely works on chrome let alone firefox.
Not enforceable in California
With the recent well publicised cases of developers stealing proprietary information, this is going to become more common.
Also not enforceable in Ontario Canada since 2021.
I’d be fine signing a non compete if they ever offered anything in return. If they want me to stay out of the market for a period of time, they better pay garden leave or SOME sort of consideration
Not worth even printing out where I am. They are worthless.
Just ignore them completely unless you're an executive.
I don't think I can live outside of California at this point
I don’t even negotiate these clauses I just have so much assurance the state is going to throw out the case that I just let the client shoot themselves in the foot, and silently get invested in seeing which other ways they’ll mess up
Washington State also passed a non-compete ban that will take effect July 2027.
When it comes to enslavement to giant corporations or government, all I can say is:
"The only winning move is not to play."
It’s nice to be rich I guess
Or be willing to move.
It's even nicer having freedom.
Freedom is pretty useless without food
Often bought with riches.
More often with principles.
i think you underestimate the starting capital required to be able to stand with principles in the modern world. I'm lucky to be in such a position, but I'm also aware few are.
You don't need money to live a principled life. Change your life lens. Seek the truth, change the company. There are several places that don't ask you to compromise your morals or principles. Be in touch with principled people, learn from them. I never care about money and so I never have it but I have never been found wanting when I need it. God will make it happen. No worries.
You’re not enlightened. You’re ignorant.
i rarely use ai, however i must constantly sift through ai blog posts like this one to find actual communication. should i leave the internet to win the game against ai? well i did the next best thing and got a nokia brick phone, yet facebook still knows how to recommend those i meet in real life!! i tried not playing but im still in the game. does that mean the only way i can win is to kill myself?
> yet facebook still knows how to recommend those i meet in real life!!
Meta is an awful company but they don't have Enemy of the State level surveillance.
If you met someone in real life and then Facebook recommended them to you the leak here was almost certainly a human one, eg. the person you met googled you and clicked your Facebook profile when it showed up (while they themselves were logged into Facebook) and that's how Facebook made the connection.
So don't kill yourself. Life is very short anyway, enjoy the absurdity of it while you can.
i was verbally introduced to somebody (that i have 1 mutual friend with) for a grand total of 30 seconds, facebook knew about it an hour later. nobody involved used their phones much during that hour. based on this occurence, facebooks intrusiveness is clearly deep enough. i appreciate the advice not to commit suicide - another responder was correct that i would be digitally resurrected as a pure profit vehicle anyway
That strategy would not be guaranteed to work.
An AI simulation of you would post on HN.
Welcome to the future.
As always 99% of it is poor quality slop...
why are you on facebook?
Rather than asking him the question of why in a simple rudimentary form, give the guy motivation to quit facebook instead. Facebook employs guilt tactics about people they know to get them to stay, and if they quit, they're likely to go back because of in person connections. By sounding condescending, the person you're replying to is likely to justify staying rather than quitting.
i think your advice would apply in a standard human situation where optimal communication requires decoration, in this scenario i reciprocated the communication format which indicates acceptance
i have an account from when i was a teenager that i sometimes use to talk to family. why do you ask? based on my anecdote we are all tracked by facebook, whether or not we are on facebook.
well you were asking how to get out of the game. leaving facebook is one of the necessary steps. it may not be enough, and some things from you may still be tracked by meta, but less is better. it's as simple as that. i do have sympathy with the fact that sometimes you just can't avoid it though. if you have family members that absolutely refuse to talk to you in any other way for example. so i ask to reflect if you really need it, or if you can find other ways to stay in touch with your family. (but the key point is the reflection, i am not expecting you to find a solution right away. the point is: always be aware why you are making that tradeoff. i would be on facebook too if i had people there that are important to me and that i could not reach any other way. i do know some people that are on facebook that i would like to be in contact with, so i can sympathize.)
It was confusing hearing that Facebook was recommending people to you when you made it sound like you were choosing to opt out of those things.
I am not sure how your anecdote would show you are all tracked by Facebook even if you aren't on facebook; you only received recommendations for people to friend on facebook because you are on facebook. I am not on facebook, so i have never had facebook recommend anyone to me.
my phone cant run facebook. by choosing this phone i am opting not to have facebook track me on a constant basis. however, based on whatever signals are available to everyone elses phones, facebook still tracks me. and facebook is doing the same to everybody including you - not sure if youre aware of the concept of shadow profiles?