WeWork Backs Down on Employee Noncompete Requirements(npr.org)
npr.org
WeWork Backs Down on Employee Noncompete Requirements
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/18/648881004/wework-backs-down-on-employee-noncompete-requirements
129 comments
(regular HNer here, posting anonymously for obvious reasons). I work for WeWork, and you don't know the half of it. In mid-August WeWork had their "Summer Camp" event, which was a three day all-hands company meeting in England. About 5500 of 7000 WeWork employees were flown into Heathrow and shipped out to a campground in Tunbridge Wells. Everyone was required to sleep in a tent, generally with four or five other tent mates, on air mattresses on the ground with thin mattresses.
Because of the vegetarianism thing, everyone was forced to eat WeWork-provided food, sans meat (though fish is okay!). This totally broke my ketogenic diet, which made me quite mad. See other comments about this being a form of group control.
For the first day and a half, we were subjected to a number of corporate "talks" which largely revolved around the cult of personalities of Adam Neumann and Miguel McKelvey. Adam Neumann particularly styles himself a televangelis or Jesus-wannabe and walks out into the audience, asking people about their deepest fears, delivering some ersatz corprorate sermon on the mount. There is no "me", only "we".
See also the time when Rebecca Neumann commands the gathered WeWorkers to hold hands, close their eyes, and pray.
Or the time that Deepak Chopra comes out and shows a disturbing video about childbirth (people were like, "is this an anti-abortion video?) and talks about how evolution and child development are intimately related, and how we should take our shoes off to let the ions flow, and leads a meditation session.
A fish rots from the head down, and this is one crazy fish.
Because of the vegetarianism thing, everyone was forced to eat WeWork-provided food, sans meat (though fish is okay!). This totally broke my ketogenic diet, which made me quite mad. See other comments about this being a form of group control.
For the first day and a half, we were subjected to a number of corporate "talks" which largely revolved around the cult of personalities of Adam Neumann and Miguel McKelvey. Adam Neumann particularly styles himself a televangelis or Jesus-wannabe and walks out into the audience, asking people about their deepest fears, delivering some ersatz corprorate sermon on the mount. There is no "me", only "we".
See also the time when Rebecca Neumann commands the gathered WeWorkers to hold hands, close their eyes, and pray.
Or the time that Deepak Chopra comes out and shows a disturbing video about childbirth (people were like, "is this an anti-abortion video?) and talks about how evolution and child development are intimately related, and how we should take our shoes off to let the ions flow, and leads a meditation session.
A fish rots from the head down, and this is one crazy fish.
I actually had to do some Google research to confirm that Deepak Chopra did indeed talk at a WeWork event. Wow.
I mean, I won't hold it against any individual to be into Deepak Chopra, I won't even hold it against a company of 100 people to invite Deepak Chopra provided the employees are aware that the company has a New Age vibe, a subtle scent of potpourri that just never goes away. 5000+ people though? Holy crap.
I mean, I won't hold it against any individual to be into Deepak Chopra, I won't even hold it against a company of 100 people to invite Deepak Chopra provided the employees are aware that the company has a New Age vibe, a subtle scent of potpourri that just never goes away. 5000+ people though? Holy crap.
I won't even hold it against a company of 100 people to invite Deepak Chopra provided the employees are aware that the company has a New Age
If you’re a devout believer in religion A and your employer forces you - unknown to you at the time you were hired - to attend religious ceremonies of religion B as a condition of your continued employment - that is surely massively illegal
If you’re a devout believer in religion A and your employer forces you - unknown to you at the time you were hired - to attend religious ceremonies of religion B as a condition of your continued employment - that is surely massively illegal
Lest anyone think this is hyperbole, I've heard even crazier stories from an employee I know personally who was there.
There was a journalist that covered the event that also corroborates basically everything that the OP is saying as well: https://www.propertyweek.com/insight/the-cult-of-wework/5098...
I'm all for reducing meat consumption. But having everyone do a hard and fast rule: no meat whatsover, seems extreme. People grew up with different values and diets. Until we can convince others, I think we should be more accepting of others values and not force everyone to do it one way.
>This totally broke my ketogenic diet
https://theoutline.com/post/6133/the-keto-diet-is-a-recipe-f...
The rest of what you describe sounds like a nightmare though.
https://theoutline.com/post/6133/the-keto-diet-is-a-recipe-f...
The rest of what you describe sounds like a nightmare though.
That's outright cult behavior in a very disturbing sense. Often cults operate as a way to cover for some verboten behavior - usually perpetrated by the founders - and use the cohesive group identity to prevent people from leaking whatever inappropriate behavior is occurring.
> This totally broke my ketogenic diet
Absolutely infuriating. As a diabetic a high-protein diet is just about the best thing for me. I'd quit on the spot.
Absolutely infuriating. As a diabetic a high-protein diet is just about the best thing for me. I'd quit on the spot.
Working on it ;)
An employee who could document health damage might have grounds for legal action, eh?
Wee!
GL!!
GL!!
> Everyone was required to sleep in a tent, generally with four or five other tent mates, on air mattresses on the ground with thin mattresses.
I prefer keto diets too, but I think this would piss me off way more. I have really bad OCD. I wash my hands a lot; coworkers notice. I'm already self conscious about it. I can go camping but it takes a lot of mental prep (and I typically throw everything in the wash or away when I get home).
If a company forced me to camp like that .. da fuck?!
Not to mention everything else about that sounds pretty insane too.
I prefer keto diets too, but I think this would piss me off way more. I have really bad OCD. I wash my hands a lot; coworkers notice. I'm already self conscious about it. I can go camping but it takes a lot of mental prep (and I typically throw everything in the wash or away when I get home).
If a company forced me to camp like that .. da fuck?!
Not to mention everything else about that sounds pretty insane too.
I love camping, away from everyone else. If you made me camp with my coworkers I would not be happy either.
The irony being that your weak immune system is making you more susceptible to the nasties...
At least half of that shit has to be illegal.
Have you considered leaking to like techcrunch or something? Hell even a major paper would probably take it up.
Have you considered leaking to like techcrunch or something? Hell even a major paper would probably take it up.
Dont leak to techcrunch. Hire an attorney. Walk away with six figures.
Do these people go nuts after getting rich, or is being crazy not an impediment to building a large company?
George Bernard Shaw once wrote, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
People who have the audacity to do big things are frequently not reasonable people at all, and many times can be quite wacky. Sometimes this turns out well, like with Isaac Newton and Nikola Tesla. Other times this turns out very badly, like with Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler.
People who have the audacity to do big things are frequently not reasonable people at all, and many times can be quite wacky. Sometimes this turns out well, like with Isaac Newton and Nikola Tesla. Other times this turns out very badly, like with Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler.
love their job and employer
It has all the trappings of a cult. It is well known that cults use a low-protein diet for indoctrination. http://www.leaderu.com/common/cults.html
It has all the trappings of a cult. It is well known that cults use a low-protein diet for indoctrination. http://www.leaderu.com/common/cults.html
Vegetarian/vegan does not mean undernourished.
Not necessarily, but it can quite often be the case if the person in question isn't actively aware of the nutrients they are consuming.
True, as is the case for any diet.
Well, sure, you can be vegetarian on a diet of pizza and icecream and get plenty of calories but you’ll still be deficient in some nutrients.
You can be on a diet of pepperoni pizza and ice cream and get plenty of calories but you’ll still be deficient in some nutrients. I don't see your point.
You can be on a diet of beef and pork, get plenty of protein, and still be undernourished.
You can be on a diet of beef and pork, get plenty of protein, and still be undernourished.
> It is well known that cults use a low-protein diet for indoctrination.
Okay, but this reads as non-sequiter because a lack of meat in a diet does not mean that the diet is one with low-protein consumption. Certainly if one is determined to be protein deficient then cutting out some food that is high in protein would be beneficial for their goal, but that's like saying if you don't use git you are managing a project wrong and aren't using version control. If you didn't want to use version control, then that would mean you wouldn't use git, but not using git doesn't mean you don't use VC.
Okay, but this reads as non-sequiter because a lack of meat in a diet does not mean that the diet is one with low-protein consumption. Certainly if one is determined to be protein deficient then cutting out some food that is high in protein would be beneficial for their goal, but that's like saying if you don't use git you are managing a project wrong and aren't using version control. If you didn't want to use version control, then that would mean you wouldn't use git, but not using git doesn't mean you don't use VC.
That's one detail that might be cult-like, but on the whole as long as their employment contract doesn't prescribe who employees are allowed to talk to I fail to see how it is cult-like on the whole.
That is kinda what an overarching noncompete is isn’t it? Cults always try to forbid former members spilling the beans.
In this case it's very specific to trade secrets. It's not really cult-like to ask people not to talk specifics about your manufacturing processes, suppliers, or customers. That's also not usually within the purview of a non-compete. Non-competes generally dictate whether you can start selling competing products with a competitor or develop the same kind of software for sale with a competitor. They generally don't prohibit finding jobs in unrelated industries.
The morally reprehensible thing about a non-compete for a barista or janitor is that the knowledge of how to make coffee or clean is widely available and unless WeWork has some kind of proprietary technique for cleaning offices the non-compete is really a form of indentured servitude. And assuming there's no particular consideration given to what would happen to the janitor or barista should they lose their job and not be able to find similar work it's the kind of contract that should be illegal. It also makes me glad that I asked my employer to hold off on leasing an office for me from WeWork as I don't like doing business with companies that are that predatory.
But there's nothing particularly cult-like about it.
The morally reprehensible thing about a non-compete for a barista or janitor is that the knowledge of how to make coffee or clean is widely available and unless WeWork has some kind of proprietary technique for cleaning offices the non-compete is really a form of indentured servitude. And assuming there's no particular consideration given to what would happen to the janitor or barista should they lose their job and not be able to find similar work it's the kind of contract that should be illegal. It also makes me glad that I asked my employer to hold off on leasing an office for me from WeWork as I don't like doing business with companies that are that predatory.
But there's nothing particularly cult-like about it.
It can be challenging to get enough iron and B vitamins with a vegetarian diet. It's not that hard to get enough protein. Most Americans are consuming more protein than their bodies can use.
I have a genetic disorder. I need about 1.5 to 2x as much nutrients as normal people to not be malnourished. I eat smaller portions of meat than your standard American diet and some of my meals are meatless. My meat-and-potatoes relatives have accused me of being vegetarian because of it. I've improved my overall nutritional status while eating semi-vegetarian by American standards.
Some B vitamins are a serious problem for some vegetarians. But you would really have to be doing something wrong to not be getting adequate protein eating vegetarian.
I have a genetic disorder. I need about 1.5 to 2x as much nutrients as normal people to not be malnourished. I eat smaller portions of meat than your standard American diet and some of my meals are meatless. My meat-and-potatoes relatives have accused me of being vegetarian because of it. I've improved my overall nutritional status while eating semi-vegetarian by American standards.
Some B vitamins are a serious problem for some vegetarians. But you would really have to be doing something wrong to not be getting adequate protein eating vegetarian.
Can someone explain the downvotes on this? There are no factual errors and the poster does not seem to be on the attack.
Meta: I've noticed downvotes are starting to be handed out very liberally lately. Maybe it's time to bump the minimum "karma" score up again required to downvote, or perhaps adjusting the algorithm on how downvotes are scored.
In a private Slack with a thousand or so industry people, I've seen "WeWork is a cult" mentioned more than once.
That isn't particularly surprising to me. Not because of anything specific to WeWork, but just because of general tech industry dynamics. Job advertisements want people who are "passionate", who "believe", who want to "change the word". We have had decades of "holy wars" and quasi-religious behavior, starting with editor choice [1] and OS [2], going up to the present moment [3][4].
It's pretty common for exposes of tech companies to talk about cult-like behavior. E.g., Dan Lyons on Hubspot [5] or John Carreyou on Theranos [6]. I don't think all startups are this way, or even most of them. But the seeds of cult-ish behavior are clearly commonplace. E.g., charismatic leaders, a group dedicated to a non-mainstream vision, people spending a lot of intense time together, hazy boundaries, top-down power structures, and a lot of young, impressionable people.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor_war
[2] https://tidbits.com/1995/06/26/computings-holy-war/
[3] https://www.recode.net/2018/5/30/17386068/brad-garlinghouse-...
[4] https://www.recode.net/2017/12/6/16680816/elon-musk-spacex-t...
[5] https://www.amazon.com/Disrupted-My-Misadventure-Start-Up-Bu...
[6] https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/07/theranos-elizabeth-holmes...
That isn't particularly surprising to me. Not because of anything specific to WeWork, but just because of general tech industry dynamics. Job advertisements want people who are "passionate", who "believe", who want to "change the word". We have had decades of "holy wars" and quasi-religious behavior, starting with editor choice [1] and OS [2], going up to the present moment [3][4].
It's pretty common for exposes of tech companies to talk about cult-like behavior. E.g., Dan Lyons on Hubspot [5] or John Carreyou on Theranos [6]. I don't think all startups are this way, or even most of them. But the seeds of cult-ish behavior are clearly commonplace. E.g., charismatic leaders, a group dedicated to a non-mainstream vision, people spending a lot of intense time together, hazy boundaries, top-down power structures, and a lot of young, impressionable people.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor_war
[2] https://tidbits.com/1995/06/26/computings-holy-war/
[3] https://www.recode.net/2018/5/30/17386068/brad-garlinghouse-...
[4] https://www.recode.net/2017/12/6/16680816/elon-musk-spacex-t...
[5] https://www.amazon.com/Disrupted-My-Misadventure-Start-Up-Bu...
[6] https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/07/theranos-elizabeth-holmes...
We're talking about WeWork here, not a tech company.
WeWork is, in no small part, a tech company.
In what non-small part?
They have a barely functioning mobile app and portal, but that's about it. Even the IT (which I wouldn't even count towards them being a tech company) seemed ridiculously broken at the locations I've been staying in the past.
They have a barely functioning mobile app and portal, but that's about it. Even the IT (which I wouldn't even count towards them being a tech company) seemed ridiculously broken at the locations I've been staying in the past.
In what non-small part?
Their business is built on the deployment of custom (if not particularly sexy) office technology and quite simply could not exist without it. There's also another certain very significant tech company they outright acquired to enhance their overall operations and portfolio.
So - they're not a traditional tech-only company; but a tech company quite definitely.
Their business is built on the deployment of custom (if not particularly sexy) office technology and quite simply could not exist without it. There's also another certain very significant tech company they outright acquired to enhance their overall operations and portfolio.
So - they're not a traditional tech-only company; but a tech company quite definitely.
the deployment of custom (if not particularly sexy) office technology and quite simply could not exist without it.
In that sense every company is a tech company. Like if McDonalds “deploys” custom deep fryers are they a tech company too?
In that sense every company is a tech company. Like if McDonalds “deploys” custom deep fryers are they a tech company too?
Yes, but not one that would have a keynote address by Deepak Chopra wherein chicken McNuggets of wisdom are delivered...
My own experience was that the printers never worked, the billing had errors, their mail and visitor notifications never worked... so while I agree they fashion themselves as a tech company, they were really bad at it.
Oh sure, their stuff only kinda works -- like the products of a great many tech companies. But at the end of the day -- well enough to have people lining outside the door. And they can't seem to stake out new buildings fast enough to keep up with the demand.
A successful tech company, through and through.
A successful tech company, through and through.
It's an interesting gedankenexperiment... we were with them for 18-24 months (I don't remember now...)... it was just an ok experience, and at a premium price. I don't imagine I would use them again. So do they continue to thrive, or does the veneer eventually fade and they are stuck holding some very expensive leases?
It seems that WeWork is interested in the cultural trappings of big tech, even though it isn’t tech at all.
WeWork is a real estate holding company masquarading as a tech company because anything that is described won't fly in any real estate holding company.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/20/business/wework-vegetaria...
Wow. I am speechless. I am without speech.
Wow. I am speechless. I am without speech.
This feels a bit naive. I understand wanting to use their position to change the world, but the right way to do this feels like the practices that Google did - small nudges to change behaviour, rather than commandments from the founders, which enforce a particular world view.
There are health and religious reasons why one may want to eat meat, but also vegetarianism for environmental reasons is a fairly US/Euro-centric phenomenon, and doesn’t have anywhere near the same following in parts of Africa, Asia, and other places.
Here’s a good thread on the topic: https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/100636379997523148...
There are health and religious reasons why one may want to eat meat, but also vegetarianism for environmental reasons is a fairly US/Euro-centric phenomenon, and doesn’t have anywhere near the same following in parts of Africa, Asia, and other places.
Here’s a good thread on the topic: https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/100636379997523148...
This may not be representative of the average WeWork employee? A 3.5 Glassdoor rating (https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/WeWork-Reviews-E661275.htm) is pretty low
We're living in a world (at least in tech) where the boundaries between work/life are becoming increasingly blurred. Right or wrong, it seems like WeWork is a breed company that expects deep employee alignment on values that extend well outside of what's normally considered the sphere of work.
This is really good to hear. WeWork has multiple office spaces in my city and I was not aware their full time staff had to sign non-competes. This seems insane considering their entire business is to provide space for freelancers and startups.
I've refused to sign non-competes myself, and have written about it previously[1]. In the past it really hasn't been a problem. People have typically changed their contracts when I bring it up. But in the past year, I had to walk away from two different jobs because of their refusal to remove non-compete language from their contracts.
Are there any groups working on getting national/federal regulations changed to invalidate or ban non-compete agreements? I'd want to contribute to such causes.
[1]: https://penguindreams.org/blog/why-i-dont-sign-non-competes/
I've refused to sign non-competes myself, and have written about it previously[1]. In the past it really hasn't been a problem. People have typically changed their contracts when I bring it up. But in the past year, I had to walk away from two different jobs because of their refusal to remove non-compete language from their contracts.
Are there any groups working on getting national/federal regulations changed to invalidate or ban non-compete agreements? I'd want to contribute to such causes.
[1]: https://penguindreams.org/blog/why-i-dont-sign-non-competes/
> Are there any groups working on getting national/federal regulations changed to invalidate or ban non-compete agreements?
I don't know if there are, but the idea seems like a complete non-starter in the USA. I don't see any reason to forbid two willing parties from entering into an agreement that includes a non-compete provision.
I can maybe see some rationale for restrictions in standard employment situations. But for contract work? If you don't like the terms, don't accept.
I don't know if there are, but the idea seems like a complete non-starter in the USA. I don't see any reason to forbid two willing parties from entering into an agreement that includes a non-compete provision.
I can maybe see some rationale for restrictions in standard employment situations. But for contract work? If you don't like the terms, don't accept.
two willing parties
Please, this is a very old topic.
The way society is currently configured, at some point, for all practical purposes, you are effectively forced to take some kind of job. Or see your life turn into living hell in a whole bunch of ways. Which means that the idea that both parties are truly "willing" parties (let alone have more or less equal leverage in) the negotiation, at the very least -- needs to be radically revisited.
But for contract work? If you don't like the terms, don't accept.
"And don't pay the rent, and don't feed your kids" you mean.
Please, this is a very old topic.
The way society is currently configured, at some point, for all practical purposes, you are effectively forced to take some kind of job. Or see your life turn into living hell in a whole bunch of ways. Which means that the idea that both parties are truly "willing" parties (let alone have more or less equal leverage in) the negotiation, at the very least -- needs to be radically revisited.
But for contract work? If you don't like the terms, don't accept.
"And don't pay the rent, and don't feed your kids" you mean.
The Mic Dicta podcast has a great commentary about this in one of their recent episodes about a labour dispute; they referred to a judge (can't remember if it was SCOTUS or a Federal court) and said, "He's never had a real job in his life."
Work contracts are not a negotiation. There is no back and fourth to an agreement. I've gotten non-competes removed from some contracts, but I'm an exception because 1) I'm in IT and highly skilled and 2) I actually read my contracts.
And even then, in two cases they wouldn't change anything about the contracts and I had to walk from those jobs. Anyone who doesn't work in tech or another high income job does NOT have that option.
Work contracts in western countries are rarely ever between equal parities.
Work contracts are not a negotiation. There is no back and fourth to an agreement. I've gotten non-competes removed from some contracts, but I'm an exception because 1) I'm in IT and highly skilled and 2) I actually read my contracts.
And even then, in two cases they wouldn't change anything about the contracts and I had to walk from those jobs. Anyone who doesn't work in tech or another high income job does NOT have that option.
Work contracts in western countries are rarely ever between equal parities.
"I don't see any reason to forbid two willing parties from entering into an agreement that includes a non-compete provision."
Because they're inherently abusive, and there's absolutely nothing in it for the employee? I mean, when you have a sandwich shop pushing non-competes on their employees, then you know they are fucking nuts.
Because they're inherently abusive, and there's absolutely nothing in it for the employee? I mean, when you have a sandwich shop pushing non-competes on their employees, then you know they are fucking nuts.
The line should be drawn at non-negotiable “take it or leave it” clauses that benefit only one party. This is not an agreement made on equal footing, it’s an ultimatum.
Let me guess - you also don't see any reason for minimum wage, minimum health insurance, minimum breaks, minimum maternity leave, or a reason to prevent people from being paid in company scrip.
If you do see the reason for any of those things, then surely you can see it's just a question of where the line is best drawn to create a just society.
If you do see the reason for any of those things, then surely you can see it's just a question of where the line is best drawn to create a just society.
I think the only thing that will happen in the US is setting some minimum standard for what the employer must pay you during the non-compete period.
Right now the employer can claim that your severance pay is your consideration for the noncompete period.
Basically, if the non-compete clause actually cost them something, you would only see it in cases where it mattered.
Right now the employer can claim that your severance pay is your consideration for the noncompete period.
Basically, if the non-compete clause actually cost them something, you would only see it in cases where it mattered.
Right now the employer can claim that your severance pay is your consideration for the noncompete period.
In cases of layoffs (vs resignation) where severance would be due non-competes are almost always voided. You would only see it if the severance package were substantial.
In cases of layoffs (vs resignation) where severance would be due non-competes are almost always voided. You would only see it if the severance package were substantial.
The article says the noncompetes will stay for 100 executive level employees. Executive level and they have 100 of them? My experience tells me they probably have the devs listed as fake executives like at a lot of companies so they don't have to pay them overtime. Is that what is really going on here?
Noncompetes are terrible and places without them do very well, California being the best example. Everyone should work to get rid of them.
Noncompetes are terrible and places without them do very well, California being the best example. Everyone should work to get rid of them.
100 employees... Makes me think of high-level employees who are "in the know" about company secrets.
Plus you can essentially and blatantly ignore them anyways.
I had a non-compete and discussed the meritless nature of it with a lawyer. My response to the company had a few swear words in it. And the issue was settled because they knew they had no basis and it was completely uneforceable.
I didn't care about burning bridges in this particular case.
I had a non-compete and discussed the meritless nature of it with a lawyer. My response to the company had a few swear words in it. And the issue was settled because they knew they had no basis and it was completely uneforceable.
I didn't care about burning bridges in this particular case.
Unfortunately, not everyone is in that position, or has access to an employment attorney, or even knows that they can challenge them.
In some cases you won't even need that attorney. That costs money on their end too. Every once in a while you can stand your ground a bit and tell them to fuck off. I consulted one which was a waste of a small amount of money. It's amazing when they realize they have to spend a lot of money, and you are not going to back down. You don't even need an attorney to write a letter that says "fuck off". I've found when you meander around an issue like that, it's sometimes useful to go hard right out of the gate so the other side doesn't think you are a pushover. Although I generally prefer a more pragmatic and polite approach, there is a shock value that is useful.
Devs as fake executives? I’ve never heard of that specifically. Devs are often FLSA exempt employees due to their professional status, but that’s usually accurate. The effect of being FLSA exempt is that they aren’t paid overtime, but that’s just the law operating as intended.
As a junior developer at an investment bank, I had the title of Associate VP.
We needed a VP to approve every code change. Fortunately, I had three of them on my team of five.
We needed a VP to approve every code change. Fortunately, I had three of them on my team of five.
I've personally known a couple of people that worked in NYC for big financial companies, and this was a known dodge. They even had a separate washroom and cafeteria for the real executives. I don't know the precise details, but I noticed that a software engineer colleague at a company had something on his resume about "vice president" on his resume at 'big finance co' and asked for the details.
In investment banking, the career path is generally:
Analyst (college graduate - 3 years) Associate (3 - ~6 years) Vice President (~6 - 8+) Executive Director Managing Director
There are exceptions at every level, but generally speaking, you automatically get promoted to vice president after 6 years if you stick around.
Note that the managing director has many levels. When I worked as an analyst at an investment bank, I reported to a managing director who had 3 other managing directors between him and the CEO of the investment bank (who himself reported to the CEO of the bank as a whole).
A VP at an investment bank may have a few low level analysts reporting to them, but generally it's no where near what you would call an "executive" position, although pay can still be quite high.
Analyst (college graduate - 3 years) Associate (3 - ~6 years) Vice President (~6 - 8+) Executive Director Managing Director
There are exceptions at every level, but generally speaking, you automatically get promoted to vice president after 6 years if you stick around.
Note that the managing director has many levels. When I worked as an analyst at an investment bank, I reported to a managing director who had 3 other managing directors between him and the CEO of the investment bank (who himself reported to the CEO of the bank as a whole).
A VP at an investment bank may have a few low level analysts reporting to them, but generally it's no where near what you would call an "executive" position, although pay can still be quite high.
Ok, I get it. Investment banks pretty much make almost everybody on salary (with some obvious exceptions, e.g. interns, administrative assistants, etc.) a “vice president.” It means nothing and is more out of tradition than anything. Those “VPs” are likely FLSA exempt regardless of title, based solely on what they do and the amount of professional judgment they get to exercise.
That’s just the way banks work. VPs are managers everywhere else.
My dad knew a good old boy type guy who had an epic VP of X title. His job duties consisted of buying a dozen different newspapers at the airport and matching obituaries and reports of deaths with safe deposit box holders before 9:30AM.
My dad knew a good old boy type guy who had an epic VP of X title. His job duties consisted of buying a dozen different newspapers at the airport and matching obituaries and reports of deaths with safe deposit box holders before 9:30AM.
Sounds like a great subscription business right there. Charge $X per month to aggregate obituaries and make them searchable or matchable to a list every day. You just replaced a $60k/year employee.
[deleted]
I'm sure a lot of it is good old-fashioned title inflation, but at least in the financial world part of the reason for so many VPs is that its an easy title to give someone to make them a corporate officer, and thus eligible to sign on behalf of the company.
I used to work for a large US corp that called us all professional developers, just so they don’t have to pay overtime... professional grades don’t get overtime
Well it is a "professional" job - though I suspect the employer didn't follow through on the other side i.e. self directed time no fixed hours etc.
Despite the general California rule, California does in fact permit and enforce non-competes. If an employee obtains “trade secrets” and the non compete is narrowly tailored to prevent the employee from using said trade secrets, the non-compete will generally be enforceable.
True, but protection from stealing trade secrets and stealing customers are very different from ordinary devs facing non-competes. Every job I have taken in 25 years as a dev has them, never specifying what a competitor really means. If I work on optimizing compilers for Google I can't work at another company for a year? Amazon has actually enforced them against nonvps. Big companies basically compete against everything in the industry. You are confusing the issue imho. My current job says I am working under California law but still put a non-compete on my contract, because they want to make people think they can't leave.
> You are confusing the issue imho.
California companies often have you sign an agreement that prohibits working for competitors, and says they'll fire you if you do; as far as I know, those are enforceable. That seems to meet the naming convention of non-compete. Perhaps we need to use another word for the post-employment non-competes allowed in less civilized regions.
California companies often have you sign an agreement that prohibits working for competitors, and says they'll fire you if you do; as far as I know, those are enforceable. That seems to meet the naming convention of non-compete. Perhaps we need to use another word for the post-employment non-competes allowed in less civilized regions.
If you're working for a competitor while working for them...they probably should fire you simply as a matter of operational security unless you're doing the type of work where you wouldn't have any exposure to trade secrets.
Yeah, it's reasonable. Although it kind of kills any side projects if you're working at a big company; because name something fun to do that doesn't compete with Yahoo.
But that's what I think of, when someone says non-compete. Because it's the only kind of non-compete I've seen, no one has tried to get me to sign a post-employment non-compete.
But that's what I think of, when someone says non-compete. Because it's the only kind of non-compete I've seen, no one has tried to get me to sign a post-employment non-compete.
Misuse of trade secrets is a completely different law to "non competes"
“Trade secrets” according to the Supreme Court anyway, are a “Common Law exception” to non-competes.
We need a new labor movement. The control corporations have over the average worker is getting troublesome for society. Between non compete clauses, cartel-like salary caps and anti-union stances, no wonder real wages haven't risen in decades. While great for the capital classes, it is long term detrimental to the stability of society.
And to be clear, these WeWork non-competes are expressly about union busting. A few months ago, the WeWork I was in at the time went from in-house cleaning and facilities staff to a contract, keeping about 1/3 of the same individuals. It's unclear what exactly happened, but we were fairly sure the workers tried to organize.
WeWork wants to prevent people from even being able to transfer to the company they contract out to after firing people, is my belief.
WeWork wants to prevent people from even being able to transfer to the company they contract out to after firing people, is my belief.
I'm not sure whey you're getting down voted. Everything you said contributes to wage problems.
There are some that visit HN that are highly paid and often of a different class in society. There's a remarkable lack of sympathy displayed by some small subset of HN readers towards those less fortunate. At least in American society, classism is a huge issue and prevents a lot of good being done in the world.
> Poor? it's simple, just get an ivy league degree in engineering and get hired at [insert big tech company here]
> Poor? it's simple, just get an ivy league degree in engineering and get hired at [insert big tech company here]
I would wager there are just as many on HN in the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" camp. They side against pro-labour practices, using many of the same arguments made by rich industrialists, because they feel it's only a matter of time before they themselves reach the top of the heap.
Many people have been convinced that the labour movement is evil. Including those that would benefit from being unionized.
Actually, especially those who would benefit.
Actually, especially those who would benefit.
You’ll always get a handful of downvotes here by mentioning anything positive about organized labor or use the U-word. It’s as reliable as the sun. Best not to sweat it.
It’s time based. If I say anything about it it will be upvoted in European hours and downvoted as soon as the West Coast comes online.
Ya I agree. I've worked in several disciplines here in Idaho - working for myself writing software for 20+ years, moving furniture for a warehouse for 3 years, computer repair for 3 years, freelance contracting and consulting for at least 5 years. In most cases employees could be at-will terminated, the pay disparity between the company's hourly rate and what it pays were rather high, and employees had little or no ownership of the business. This last point is most important IMHO.
I think the very simplest step to remedying labor-capitalist relations in the US is to change the corporate mandate to maximizing worker quality of life instead of maximizing shareholder value. This would basically mean that corporate boards would be > 50% workers and that work (earned income) would always be taxed less than capital gains (unearned income). This could be obtained through unions or by new legislation at the state/federal level. Richard Wolff has many videos on YouTube about it.
Unfortunately since this is the US of A, democracy has been conflated with capitalism and most people seem to have forgotten that our country was founded on the principle of no taxation without representation. I argue that since wages are so low now, we're all paying an effective 50% tax to the private sector, which gets vacuumed up by the very wealthy or moved out of the country to exploit even poorer people. Our income goes to rents, school (which used to be public), medical care (which is public in most other countries), etc etc etc. It would be more profitable for the middle class to do these workplace reforms and make 2-4 times as much income at a slightly higher tax rate than we have now.
The above is the most logical, succinct way I can put it, because I have firsthand experience in how the current system isn't working and isn't sustainable. And I've had it relatively easy compared to people struggling with 2-3 jobs and children to support. But the level of vitriol I get from friends and family that agree with me on most things (except politics!) is just incredible.
I think the very simplest step to remedying labor-capitalist relations in the US is to change the corporate mandate to maximizing worker quality of life instead of maximizing shareholder value. This would basically mean that corporate boards would be > 50% workers and that work (earned income) would always be taxed less than capital gains (unearned income). This could be obtained through unions or by new legislation at the state/federal level. Richard Wolff has many videos on YouTube about it.
Unfortunately since this is the US of A, democracy has been conflated with capitalism and most people seem to have forgotten that our country was founded on the principle of no taxation without representation. I argue that since wages are so low now, we're all paying an effective 50% tax to the private sector, which gets vacuumed up by the very wealthy or moved out of the country to exploit even poorer people. Our income goes to rents, school (which used to be public), medical care (which is public in most other countries), etc etc etc. It would be more profitable for the middle class to do these workplace reforms and make 2-4 times as much income at a slightly higher tax rate than we have now.
The above is the most logical, succinct way I can put it, because I have firsthand experience in how the current system isn't working and isn't sustainable. And I've had it relatively easy compared to people struggling with 2-3 jobs and children to support. But the level of vitriol I get from friends and family that agree with me on most things (except politics!) is just incredible.
Seriously? Non Competes for Janitors and Baristas?
At what point do we call this what it is: bullying.
At what point do we call this what it is: bullying.
At what point do we call this what it is: labor abuse.
I'm betting the janitors don't actually work for them, but for a contractor.
Warning. Valuable Trade Secrets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation
While that would seem likely to me, too, that would make non-compete agreements from WeWork enforced against such contractors seem even more ridiculous. Of course, white collar contractors get stuck with such clauses frequently (which also seems bogus, particularly in "right to work" states).
I think the non-compete only applies to employees. They have a large staff of full time people that do things like plan events, manage social media, real estate transactions, and so on.
Non-competes should not be allowed unless the employer is willing the pay the former employee to enforce it.
This is referred to as gardening leave in the UK:
> Garden leave describes the practice whereby an employee leaving a job – having resigned or otherwise had their employment terminated – is instructed to stay away from work during the notice period, while still remaining on the payroll. [...] Employees continue to receive their normal pay during garden leave and must adhere to their conditions of employment, such as confidentiality, at least until their notice period expires.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave
> Garden leave describes the practice whereby an employee leaving a job – having resigned or otherwise had their employment terminated – is instructed to stay away from work during the notice period, while still remaining on the payroll. [...] Employees continue to receive their normal pay during garden leave and must adhere to their conditions of employment, such as confidentiality, at least until their notice period expires.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave
Right. I would happily sign a year’s non compete if the company was going to go on paying my full salary for the entire period.
Aren't most non-compete clauses just HR stunts? Every time I hear about some company trying to get employees to sign them, that's almost always followed up by a statement saying it would fall apart if it were taken to court.
TIL: Non-compete clauses are the devil and actively screw people over.
TIL: Non-compete clauses are the devil and actively screw people over.
My first job out of college was at a startup that focused on financial regulatory compliance.. I had no CS degree, barely knew how to program, and was generally a mediocre employee. I quit after five months and went to a company that offered a competing product (although I wasn't going to be working on it). The original company tried to sue me for violating my non-compete, and I almost lost that new job. Fortunately the new company negotiated on my behalf and I was transferred to a different company under the same corporate entity to wait out my non-compete.
This stuff happens, unfortunately.
This stuff happens, unfortunately.
The issue is that an extremely sensitive negotiation (interviewing and hiring process) is utterly disrupted by their presence, so nobody is in a good position to legally challenge them. If almost ANY non compete is in place, the potential employer is highly likely to make the decision not to bother with the candidate. Proving that it was because of the noncompete is difficult (making it difficult to prove real damages).
They would almost certainly fall apart in court, but the systems they disrupt don’t survive long enough to move them into court.
They would almost certainly fall apart in court, but the systems they disrupt don’t survive long enough to move them into court.
It's not that they'd fall apart, it's the fact that you have to retain a lawyer to get a new job. Sure, you'll win eventually, but at what cost?
I've seen that stunt go to the point of pressuring a startup into a buyout. You need a lot of money and confidence to rely on courts.
Perhaps you are thinking of California? This is certainly true in California, but I've seen non-competes enforced in the tech sector elsewhere in the US (Seattle, Utah, etc).
California law goes as far as to state you can't have a non-compete agreement in the work contract at all. When I worked in Seattle, my contract had a non-compete that specifically said it didn't apply in California, and then the fucking staffing agency tried to tell me it wasn't a non-compete.
I called Bullshit! It explicitly excludes your California office! Don't try to lie to me!
I called Bullshit! It explicitly excludes your California office! Don't try to lie to me!
I am in exactly this situation working in Seattle for a Cali company.
I lost a job due to one. This was in NY. I had signed the offer and the new company's counsel withdrew the offer because of my current employer.
interested, how did they find out?
I provided my employment agreement to the new company when they asked for it.
Probably put his previous job on his resume or they looked up his previous job using a credit reporting bureau
Often it's just that the two companies are aware of each other's policies. If they've heard of Company B and know it has a non-compete they just reject you.
Kind of weakens the argument for negotiating the non-compete clause(s) out of the contract. You might get screwed anyway if the hiring company assumes you had to sign one.
Noncompetes need to die in a fire. They are defacto parasitic to the economy. The government should be promoting competition not limiting it by wasting resources enforcing leonine contracts to actively make the economy worse.
They should write about companies applying non-compete clauses to doctors. It's actually causing problems with public health.
It requires doctors to relocate to another state entirely to practice especially if what they do is specialized.
It requires doctors to relocate to another state entirely to practice especially if what they do is specialized.
"right to work", "impossibility to renounce the right to work" should be written down somewhere in the basic rights or even in the constitutions. In the reality of visas, protectionism, various barriers, employability is one the highest values one can have to offer on the job market.
This is what I've heard (at least in Pennsylvania where I work, and from a number of family members and friends working in different HR departments.) IANAL.
Non-competes are unenforceable because you cannot take away someone's right to work. I'm talking even about switching to your previous employer's competitor. Say you're a software engineer with a lot of domain knowledge on heavy construction. And that employer lets you go (for whatever reason). If there's one other heavy construction company within driving distance hiring software engineers, neither the state nor your previous employer can keep you from using your talents to make a living for yourself.
The only exception is in NDA's. You can't take proprietary information with you, whether it's source code or sales leads.
Non-competes are unenforceable because you cannot take away someone's right to work. I'm talking even about switching to your previous employer's competitor. Say you're a software engineer with a lot of domain knowledge on heavy construction. And that employer lets you go (for whatever reason). If there's one other heavy construction company within driving distance hiring software engineers, neither the state nor your previous employer can keep you from using your talents to make a living for yourself.
The only exception is in NDA's. You can't take proprietary information with you, whether it's source code or sales leads.
Different states have different laws. Generally, non-competes are enforceable as long as they have reasonable geographic limits and reasonable time limits. There is usually no "right to work" exceptions -- I have never heard of one anyway.
And the definition of reasonable duration or reasonable geographic limits depends on the job and the industry.
And the definition of reasonable duration or reasonable geographic limits depends on the job and the industry.
Non-competes offer no benefits whatsoever to employees, and should be banned outright. There is zero legitimate reason that an employer should have any say whatsoever on what someone does after that employer stops paying them.
>should be banned outright
almost but not quite.
> there is zero legitimate reason that an employer should have any say whatsoever on what someone does after that employer stops paying them.
Agreed.
However, non-competes make prefect sense when a company is bought/sold. If I own a Marketing firm, and sell it to you, it would be perfectly reasonable, as part of that sale, for you to require me to sign a non-compete. Otherwise I could rent an office across town, call up all my old customers (the ones you just payed a lot of money to get) and convince them to switch to my new company and leave you high and dry.
almost but not quite.
> there is zero legitimate reason that an employer should have any say whatsoever on what someone does after that employer stops paying them.
Agreed.
However, non-competes make prefect sense when a company is bought/sold. If I own a Marketing firm, and sell it to you, it would be perfectly reasonable, as part of that sale, for you to require me to sign a non-compete. Otherwise I could rent an office across town, call up all my old customers (the ones you just payed a lot of money to get) and convince them to switch to my new company and leave you high and dry.
> However, non-competes make prefect sense when a company is bought/sold. If I own a Marketing firm, and sell it to you, it would be perfectly reasonable, as part of that sale, for you to require me to sign a non-compete. Otherwise I could rent an office across town, call up all my old customers (the ones you just payed a lot of money to get) and convince them to switch to my new company and leave you high and dry.
Ironically, this happens fairly regularly. Companies will hire someone because of their "Rolodex", and the hope / belief / nudge wink that they will do exactly that, bring "their" customers to you.
Ironically, this happens fairly regularly. Companies will hire someone because of their "Rolodex", and the hope / belief / nudge wink that they will do exactly that, bring "their" customers to you.
But that's not a condition of employment, that's a deal you make as a business owner. As a condition of employment, it has no reason to exist other than as a tool for businesses to abuse workers.
100% agree that as a condition of employment it makes zero sense.
This is odd to me, because the people I know who work for them love their job and employer, but it seems like they're moving down a dark path...