Massachusetts Governor Announces Plan to Abolish Noncompetes

Re:Massachusetts Governor Announces Plan to Abolish Noncompetes by iamthepieman on Thursday April 10, 2014 @11:16AM (#7566865)

Just because they are non-enforceable doesn't mean they have no effect. The COO of one of past employers was offered a job at a competitor shortly after he was fired. When the new company heard of his non-compete clause and the intent of the old company to enforce it, they withdrew their offer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Massachusetts Governor Announces Plan to Abolish Noncompetes by ghaff on Thursday April 10, 2014 @11:59AM (#7567289)

When I worked for a small research firm, we basically wouldn't have employment discussions with anyone who had a non-compete even if it seemed unlikely their current employer would go to the mat over it. Just the existence of a non-compete would have meant getting lawyers involved and it was just too much hassle and risk.

(It's also the case that one of our large competitor firms, at least at the time, put non-competes in place that effectively wouldn't let anyone who left work for any competitor. i.e. they couldn't do the same job at any other firm. And, apparently, they enforced these agreements rather vigorously.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Massachusetts Governor Announces Plan to Abolish Noncompetes by deveac on Thursday April 10, 2014 @03:06PM (#7568916)

>When I worked for a small research firm, we basically wouldn't have employment discussions with anyone who had a non-compete even if it seemed unlikely their current employer would go to the mat over it. Just the existence of a non-compete would have meant getting lawyers involved and it was just too much hassle and risk.

Had a similar experience at my company. We worked as a subcontractor whose parent company lost a contract at renewal time to a rival. The rival did not sub out and instead approached our employees on site and hired one directly. The owners got in touch and told the new firm that we had a non-compete and their response was basically "Ok, that's fine. Let us know if you intend to enforce it. If not, we're hiring him. If so, we won't, but we're not subbing the work out to you. It really doesn't matter to us what you do, just let us know. If we don't here back from you by this time tomorrow we're not hiring him."

In the end I'm happy to say that management did the right thing and just let him go unmolested, but the hiring firm explicitly stated that his job wasn't worth the expense and hassle to them, and just threw the ball back at us.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Massachusetts Governor Announces Plan to Abolish Noncompetes by tptacek on Thursday April 10, 2014 @11:34AM (#7567052)

They could conceivably be liable for interference. A previous employer of mine had that problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Massachusetts Governor Announces Plan to Abolish Noncompetes by iamthepieman on Thursday April 10, 2014 @11:55AM (#7567254)

This was a company with under 50 employees who had a full time general counsel. They had no lines of business that were remotely related to law.

Maybe that's not abnormal but I had never, and have never since, seen a small company who didn't outsource their GC needs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Massachusetts Governor Announces Plan to Abolish Noncompetes by tptacek on Thursday April 10, 2014 @01:29PM (#7568130)

I think the general pattern I'm referring to is:

* Candidate inbound

* Has presumably-unenforceable noncompete

* Prospective employer made aware of noncompete

* Prospective employer concerned that former employer might make a claim that the hiring process constituted knowing interference with a contract, and that that claim might be colorable even if the noncompete had no teeth.

* No hire

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Massachusetts Governor Announces Plan to Abolish Noncompetes by lawnchair_larry on Thursday April 10, 2014 @02:32PM (#7568674)

I know of at least one company (Microsoft) that goes the extra mile and stipulates in your non-compete that you must show every future employer the non-compete that you signed. It would seem like that is only in there because Microsoft has very intimidating teeth.

I also heard a rumor that when Google takes their talent, they send them down to the bay area for 18 months to dodge WA's non-compete friendly laws. But I'm a bit skeptical of that one unless perhaps it's a VP or something.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Massachusetts Governor Announces Plan to Abolish Noncompetes by dredmorbius on Thursday April 10, 2014 @11:10PM (#7571056)

Microsoft has successfully enforced its non-competes against at least two California firms, Saleseforce and Google:

"The inherent unfairness of employee non-compete agreements: Judge rules former Microsoft executive can't take new Salesforce job"

http://www.itworld.com/legal/138182/inherent-unfairness-empl...

"Microsoft Googles 'Non-Compete Agreement'"

http://www.searchnewz.com/microsoft-googles-non-compete-agre...

The maker of Windows and the Xbox has filed suit over Google’s hiring of a former Microsoft executive.

Google hired Kai-Fu Lee, formerly the corporate VP of Microsoft’s Interactive Services Division, to run Google’s China operations.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Massachusetts Governor Announces Plan to Abolish Noncompetes by lawnchair_larry on Friday April 11, 2014 @12:09AM (#7571178)

Wow, so it would seem that one can't simply move out of state...or even out of the country. That's just wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Massachusetts Governor Announces Plan to Abolish Noncompetes by smackfu on Thursday April 10, 2014 @12:20PM (#7567496)

A non-compete when you are fired? That's odd. It seems very simple for companies to lock up tons of talent just by hiring and firing them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Massachusetts Governor Announces Plan to Abolish Noncompetes by iamthepieman on Thursday April 10, 2014 @12:26PM (#7567543)

In the U.S many states (at least on the books) enforce non-competes even if fired without cause.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f1eab2d5-0fda-...

edit: added link

[ Parent | on HN ]