News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Noncompete Clauses: Signing Away the Right to Get a New Job by pm90 on Monday May 15, 2017 @09:35AM (#14341409)
Really depends on a case by case basis. In smaller companies or the recently founded megacorps, managers often have a lot of sway since they are responsible for the survival/growth of the company. So if you're a required hire, the manager might ask his/her manager to push your request through.

Much harder to do this in a bureaucratic company that has been around forever since they tend to be pretty inflexible on everything except salary/benefits.

Re:Noncompete Clauses: Signing Away the Right to Get a New Job by ethbro on Monday May 15, 2017 @03:00PM (#14344165)
Because of this, I usually frame it with a salary-and-benefits-adjusted alternative.

E.g. "I'm very interested in the position we discussed, but would like to discuss clauses X, Y, and Z. These pose a problem for me for reasons. If this is something you could be flexible on, I'd love to see what we can agree on! If these aren't clauses that can be changed, I feel that salary +A and benefits +B would be more in line with what you're asking for."

If phrased like that, you're putting the "choice" back in their hands, but making it clear just how much these things are worth to you.

They may say "Neither of those options works for us," but the difference is that they're making the decision to torpedo your hiring over one of their own clauses. Imo, it's much more difficult to say "These clauses are worth A & B" than it is to say "These clauses are super important."