Non-Competes Might Mean Loss Of Benefits 488
Skapare writes "WashTech is running a story about how having a non-compete agreement could cause loss of unemployment benefits. While non-compete agreements are addressed in unemployment benefits policies, it seems you still get shafted because it forces you to accept any employment outside your field, making it much harder to find work in your field. Personally, I think the employers with whom you have a non-compete agreement should be the ones paying you unemployment benefits."
Simple Fix (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Simple Fix (Score:5, Interesting)
Even better simple fix. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, the business world. Where freedom doesn't ring.
Re:Even better simple fix. (Score:2)
Re:Even better simple fix. (Score:2)
Re:Even better simple fix. (Score:3, Insightful)
This could actually work (Score:4, Informative)
This could actually work. "Accept" the job while refusing to sign the NCA. Keep a copy of your letter stating that you accept the offer in case your unemployment benefits are challenged, should it be the case they decline to employ you.
I've actually done that once on an indepdent contract. They wanted an NCA preventing me from working for any hosting company for a year. At the time, hosting companies were just starting on the scene, and that looked like a good field to work in. I simply explained that agreeing to that effectively agreed to be unemployed for a year for someone whose expertise was well focused on internet technology, and most ISPs were becoming hosting companies. I offered to agree not to take any customers with me to any new company (as if I could ... I don't work in sales).
Brother lost job over not signing (Score:5, Interesting)
Then he was let go.
He explained not signing by pointing out that (1) the agreement was not legal [there were clauses in it that would never be upheld in court, including not working in any competing field for 10 years, including any field that the company later got into], enslaving, and wrong.
The company explained it by saying that getting their bank loans renewed depended on them getting all employees to sign these agreements. True or not, I do know that the company was in some level of loan trouble -- so I do consider it possible.
Anyone else know for sure?
Sorry, still good reason not to sign (Score:5, Informative)
What I am saying is that it is currently unenforceable. However, you need a specific judgement to get your contract in specific thrown out, and to go after a specific judgement, you need to challenge the company and get fired. May as well not sign, then. Without the specific judgement, if the country later changes its laws to say that it *is* enforceable, then you've just been sold up the river.
Further, the boss may have been truthful, in that the bank requires these agreements, then it is the bank that wants the slave-owners. It is also the bank that is slowly taking control of the company. So if that is so, then they clearly have more than enough assets to harrass ex-employees out of any useful labor. See some of the other posts in this line, and you will see that some of these companies really do use their contracts to violate the law.
It might be interesting to go into a class action lawsuit against all companies that require these NCAs, and -- where applicable -- specifically reflect the class action lawsuit to the banks, if the NCAs were required by the banks as terms of loan agreements, since the loans are often forced on the small business (that is, it is a case of take the loan, or get seized in foreclosure). But when I say interesting, I don't say good. Theft in response to theft doesn't really solve anything. It just makes the problems bigger and deeper. The best response may be to just start publicizing lists of slave-driving executives, unjust executives, and weak executives who don't protect their people. In other words, have a list of "who is currently being evil or weak". Then submit that list to Forbes magazine every year, as well.
That way, investors can stay away from companies driven by such leaders. Would that make sense to investors? I really think it would make sense to the smartest of them, since a business is properly viewed not as an investment, but as a reaction chamber that has to maintain 4 ingredients in a proper mixture: investors, workers, customers, and working fluid[$]. Destroy too much of one or another, and you have a business that cannot last.
Re:$15 trill economy dosent have a real welfare sy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:$15 trill economy dosent have a real welfare sy (Score:5, Insightful)
But more importantly, they're a sign of a civilised society.
Re:$15 trill economy dosent have a real welfare sy (Score:5, Insightful)
Please think of this next Christmas when you're watching the Corporate News.
Re:$15 trill economy dosent have a real welfare sy (Score:4, Insightful)
We are talking about civilized societies here. Personally, the misfit in me partially desires burning people like you alive, rather than your house. It doesn't mean such an action would be civilized.
We can have anarchy, or we can have civilization. The desire of the few which are contrary to civilization are deservingly suppressed.
Re:$15 trill economy dosent have a real welfare sy (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, please spare me your anarchy vs. civilization speech. "Civilized societies" can destroy property as much as anarchists can. They just do it for the so-called good of the economy.
Re:$15 trill economy dosent have a real welfare sy (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it won't be good for either you or the economy. This is the broken window fallacy which says that somebody going around throwing rocks through windows helps the economy by increasing the business of window repairmen. The flaw is that it ignores that the money spent on repairs would otherwise have been put to more productive uses.
Re:$15 trill economy dosent have a real welfare sy (Score:3, Interesting)
Not at all.
This is 'good for the economy' in the same way that eating a big bag of sugar is good for your body. Yes, it can produce a short term energetic boost, but only at the expense of longterm well-being.
Re:$15 trill economy dosent have a real welfare sy (Score:3, Insightful)
That's hardly a good analogy. Welfare is consistent but will grow somewhat as unemployment grows. What you are describing actually is more like what central banks do to flatten the business cycle: they reduce interest rates and increase liquidity, giving the economy exactly that sugar rush, then have to do the opposite if the stimulus goes too far.
Again untrue. In fact it does exactly the opposite. By deco
Re:$15 trill economy dosent have a real welfare sy (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're the one that's drinking some crazy kool-aid.
I know what I'm talking about firsthand, I live in Sweden, and I have recently developed a need for medical attention.
Europeans are healthier for a host of reasons, attitude, diet, and lifestyle come to mind. It has absolutely nothing to do with the absolutely god-awful excuses for health care services that prevail here however. Except, perhaps, in an indirect way - knowing that health care is so worthless here does give one a bit of an extra incentive to eat right and exercise more.
Re:$15 trill economy dosent have a real welfare sy (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah. Someone dies, the money comes in to you (who didn't die). Comes in. In come. Sounds like a reasonable tax to me.
So $250k that what anymore? A house, half of a house?
Where I live it's two houses. You, by your own voluntary choice, want a house in an area where houses are expensive, whose fault is that?
*It's* *already* *had* *it's* *taxes* *paid* *on* *it*
*Everything* has already had taxes paid on it. Many times. I
It is so simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
It has to be a balance in the system.
Re:It is so simple... (Score:2, Flamebait)
There is a a balance in the system. If you don't like the terms turn the job down.
Re:It is so simple... (Score:3, Informative)
That's what he did. By making a counter-offer, he's effectively turning down the offer. Perhaps you should direct your caustic remark to the other posters who sound like victims. I dislike those guys as much as you do and I think you're confusing the parent poster with one of those guys.
Re:It is so simple... (Score:4, Insightful)
Reaching a bad and unequal equilibrium is not "balance."
Re:It is so simple... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/crocs66nca.htm [asktheheadhunter.com]
" Signing non-compete agreements for fun and profit.
Companies love to have new hires sign non-compete agreements (NCA's), whereby the employee agrees that if and when he leaves the company, he will not join a competitor or compete with the company for a prescribed period of time. The prospect of signing an NCA worries most people, and it should. An NCA can prevent you from working in your field and it can cost you a lot of money in lost income.
There are many tactics you can use to limit the effects of an NCA, including restricting the time period and the geographic area to which it applies. But, I've got a better approach that startles most companies. Try it when you negotiate your next NCA.
Recognize that signing an NCA costs you money and confers a benefit on the company. For the deal to be fair, the NCA should cost the company money, too, and it should confer a benefit on you.
If a company wants to restrict your ability to earn a living, it should give you something in return: a guaranteed severance package for the term of the NCA, to tide you over while you're out of work and not competing. The severance should be yoked to the terms of the NCA. That is, if the NCA applies whether you quit or are fired, then the severance should be paid in either case. This is a deal that shows good faith when the company hires you.
It's no fun to be left holding the bag when you leave your job. If a company wants to lock you out of the market, it must compensate you for it. What I'm suggesting is a win-win approach to NCA's that forces the employer to put some skin in the game. When it has to pay for the benefit of an NCA, an employer will think carefully before asking you to sign one.
Let's make sure there's fun and profit for everyone in NCA's."
Re:It is so simple... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It is not that simple (Score:5, Interesting)
Tech workers should have unionized against this type of abuse ages ago. Even if the company goes ahead and hires a bunch of desperate scabs to break your strike, you've now got a powerful political lobby to fight off the lies of the IEEE (tech worker shortage, my ass) and get NCAs made illegal, if not nationally then do it state by state.
Re:It is so simple... (Score:4, Informative)
That's what my work does. The contract I signed says that they're allowed to require me not to compete for as long as they like, but will pay me at the same salary for that period. The specific job description then states the default period that applies to my job (1 month).
Note: this payment only applies if they fire me. If I leave of my own free will they ask me to respect the agreement (though I think they note that it's probably not enforcable) and won't pay the period.
In Investment Banking, this is normal... (Score:4, Informative)
The bank just pays the employee not to work for a period of around three months, during which time they are not permitted to work anywhere else. This is referred to in the City as "Gardening Leave". Note, someone jumping ship may well have another place to go to, that is permitted. However, they can't start work until the end of the "gardening leave". Both sides understand that.
Re:It is so simple... (Score:2)
That's why it's important that you ask in _advance_ if an NCA will be required of you. You should also ask for a copy of the employee manual, a copy of the complete benefits and package, and try to ascertain if there will be a urynalysis, a psychological test, a pay stub check, or a lie detector test upon hire.
Even if those proces
Are they really legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone have the facts on this?
mod parent up (Score:5, Interesting)
So non-comps are nice but their ability to prevent you from gainful employment is seriously questionable. I'm unaware of any case law regarding this; any lawyers out there care to school us?
Just bill the time to the "slashdot overhead" account!
Re:mod parent up (Score:3, Interesting)
But it takes $$$ to fight (Score:5, Interesting)
I just went through this situation last year when I was looking at switching jobs. It ended up not being an issue, but the prospect of having to deal with it in court was just a little unnerving. It's not enough to be right. Unfortunately, you have to have enough money and time to prove you're right in court. And, a private citizen just doesn't have to resources a corporation has.
So, needless to say, with my last job hunt I learned from my mistakes. When one of the companies I was interviewing with gave me an offer and asked me to sign a non-compete, I turned it back on them. They wanted all these things including 3 weeks notice before leaving. And, if they couldn't find a replacement for me in those 3 weeks, I had to pay their lost consulting revenue until they found one - or I could stay on until they found someone. So, I told them that I wanted 3 weeks notice before layoffs, firings, or any other termination of employment, and if I couldn't find a job in those 3 weeks, I wanted paid until I could find a replacement position. I didn't wait for their answer and just took another offering, but I wonder what they would have said. It's really not a great IT job market to be negotiating these sorts of things.
Re:But it takes $$$ to fight (Score:2)
Hate to nitpick, but... (Score:4, Funny)
If you're violating a non-compete agreement, you're not out of a job.
Re:But it takes $$$ to fight (Score:3, Interesting)
Whoa. There's a funny/scary bit in the novel Jennifer Government where somebody's talking about a company (a fictional future version of Adidas) which sues you for lost profits if you quit and your replacement isn't as competent as you were. I thought that was i
Re:mod parent up (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Are they really legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would imagine that enforceabilities are different in different states.
I did evil telemarketing for Appleby Windows out of York for almost 5 years. They had a non-compete agreement. I have seen them pursue it ruthlessly.
Something else that needs to be considered is wether a lawsuit was 'won' or 'settled'.
People that say 'I don't think you can sue for that.' are wrong.
I can sue you for reading this comment.
You can sue me for writing it.
But can I legally win that suit in court?
Appleby had big ass lawyers to throw around. Dollars to Doughnuts (mmmmm doughnuts) says that they never actually 'won' any of those suits but settled with other companies.
And that really makes NDA's evil. You are out looking for a job and even if the NDA is BS you probably cannot afford to 'win' a lawsuit.
Re:Are they really legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the idea of a non-compete is an idea that's going to fade away; it justn't seem intellectually tenable to me. It's certainly reasonable for a company to protect its trade secrets and intellectual property (don't mean to troll here), but labor mobility is a force of public interest (supports wages and other positive economic effects).
I'm what most people would consider a radical free marketer, but even I realize that certain agreements foul up the system by their very nature. For example, I should theoretically support the right of a worker to sell himself into slavery; after all, if it is his very own freedom, is it not his own freedom to sell? Obviously, this gums up the works very quickly and destroys the system. Kind of like Hofstader's self-destroying record - record player combo. Anyhow, I think non-competes may be a less extreme version of this.
Re:Are they really legal? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's always good to try to avoid signing a contract with a noncompete clause. Many places will remove the clause if you ask.
It's time to start writing to state, and maybe federal, politicians to get these types of contracts made illegal anyway. These agr
Man, I hate people. (sometimes) (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Man, I hate people. (sometimes) (Score:4, Informative)
IANAL (Score:5, Informative)
They pay for it (Score:5, Insightful)
They may not be paying unemployment benefits, but they *do* provide compensation for the non-compete agreement. In the case of slave traders like these, the compensation is in the form of getting a job in the first place; in the case of other companies, people signing non-compete agreements are generally paid more than they would receive at a job which did not require such an agreement.
If you don't like the terms of employment offered, *don't accept them*.
Re:They pay for it (Score:3, Insightful)
It has been discussed before on Slashdot, but I feel the need to bring it up again. This is a perfect example of why there should be a union for tech workers. The fact that employers continue to treat tech workers in this manner, even though these are the highly skilled people who create and m
Re:They pay for it (Score:2)
Re:They pay for it (Score:2)
If you're really worried about that possibility, sign a contract with someone which requires you to read slashdot.
That way, when you get that job offer, you don't have to report it because you weren't legally able to accept it.
Thank you Microsoft! (Score:4, Funny)
That story sickens me. (Score:2, Insightful)
Contracts aren't for everyone... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Contracts aren't for everyone... (Score:2)
Oddball situation (Score:5, Interesting)
All you have to do is make the company "aware" of something that makes you look unattractive for the current position. They'll rescind the job offer and you won't lose your benefits.
Re:Oddball situation (Score:4, Interesting)
What it *SHOULD* lead to... (Score:5, Insightful)
If a company has an employee sign a non-compete agreement, they are effectively limiting that employee's future prospects, and placing a heavier load on the unemployment insurer. Therefore the insurance company should monitor what non-compete agreements the company uses and charge the company accordingly.
As to Mr. Robb's dilemma, he did not receive a valid work offer (because of the agreement he was essentially "not qualified" for the job anyway) and therefore should not have needed to report the offer to the insurer.
You're Safe in California (Score:5, Informative)
The last time an employment contract had a non-compete clause in it, I crossed it out and initialed it. I also told the HR person I had done so and explained that it wasn't enforceable in this state. It did not affect the hiring. Actually, at that point they couldn't refuse to hire me since they had already made the offer which I had accepted. If they had refused to hire me for my unwillingness to sign an unenforceable contract, they would have been open to all kinds of litigation.
Re:You're Safe in California (Score:2)
Re:You're Safe in California (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the way it is in TX... (Score:5, Informative)
Companies in TX do pay for your unemployment benefits. I urge anybody who finds themselves laid off in Texas to file for unemployment, whether or not you need it. Your former employer's unemployment tax rate is based in part on unemployment claims received the prior year. Extended benefits result in chargebacks to the employer in the form of increased unemployment taxes for the following year.
Make those tax dollars work for you, and stop giving your former employers a free ride by refusing to file for unemployment.
Re:That's the way it is in TX -- and California (Score:5, Informative)
So, to make a long story short. Employers DO pay unemployment. It's just filetered through the govt.
To keep this on topic - we don't do noncompetes for our employees, but I can see how the govt would get upset. They're paying unemployment for someone who has specifically agreed NOT to look for work in their field. Certainly not in the spirit of the law. Perhaps the unemployment should kick in when the non-compete expires.
What are the actual risks of violating the NDA? (Score:2)
Appleby really abused that system. If they got wind that you were working for another Window, Door or Patio company they came after you.
What do you think the actual risks are of working for those companies anyways?
Say you have no inclination to do dishonest stuff like stealing leads and the like, you just want a job. So you keep your tra
Many years ago, (Score:5, Interesting)
When we both decided it was time for me to leave (They abused me, I bitched about it but they didn't like me bitching about them abusing me!) I was informed that I could not work in the only field I knew, computers, for 3 years.
I called "bullshit" on them and told them I would have another job doing the same thing before the day was out.
They told me if I did they would see me in court and would own my soul for life.
I was employed by another firm before the sun set that day and I called to tell the old firm to stuff it.
They sent me some nasty-grams and I tossed them in the circular file. Lawyers rang my phone for months and months on end and they mailed tons of nasty letters to me which I just ignored. Nothing ever came of it.
After a year they gave up.
Every once in a while I get a spurt of calls and nasty-grams from collection agencies, the law firms are STILL trying to stiff me for legal fees.
nasty-grams --> circular file
phone calls --> answering machine w/SIT tones....
Non-compete agreement, just don't sign it.
No one has the legal right to stop you from earning a living.
You can be sued six ways to Sunday and they may take the shirt off your back but they can't take the tools of your trade. To do so would be denying you the right to earn a living. Forcing someone to submit to a non-competition agreement is the same thing, it is tantamount to them taking the tools of your trade...
If you *MUST* sign one, just ignore it when you leave and go out and make a living. You do what you have to do stay alive. NO ONE has the right to stop you...
Re:Many years ago, (Score:2, Informative)
What the hell did the lawyer letters actually demand that you do? Or did you not even get that far before tossing them? If it was me, I'd have put them up on a website called www.${companyname}-wants-me-to-quit-my-job.com. Maybe you still can.
As for the legal fees, do check up on your credit report. If they have placed derogatory items on your credit report, then it may be time to sue them.
Re:Many years ago, (Score:2)
Re:Many years ago, (Score:5, Informative)
In the end, if it came down to it, and non-competes were enforced on everyone then only beginners who have never been in the field would be able to get a job.
I don't believe in breaking contracts but I do consult with a legal representative before signing my agreements (yeah, the $5k retainers suck)... in the end, non-completes and contracts that aren't nagotiable aren't legally binding. Anything I invent in my own time isn't theirs, either.
Of course, it's been attempting to claim something of mine I wrote they argued that because they were paying me a salary I was on their time. A few facts first... in California, unless you make about $100k you are not exempt from being paid overtime (you are not "salaried" so that argument didn't hold up well because I wasn't pre-approved for overtime when working at home or they refuse to pay me for all the hours I worked at home because for purposes of overtime pay, they don't recognize "what [I] do in [my] own spare time".
Next, it didn't hold up because I spent quite a sum of money on dev tools and support incidents at $245 a pop with MS and while they company was quick to point out that I was working on their time ("in the garage at my home") when asked if they would expense those expenses because it was "their time" they said what I do with my own money in my own time is not their responsibility.
Next when they were asked why they hired me they responded that they hired me because I have well established experience doing exactly what I do, and what I did for them. I didn't learn it on the job and I didn't pick up any secrets while working there. Further more, what I did in my own spare time didn't even relate to the company or any of my responsibilities at the company or any of anyone elses responsibilities at the company, they just wanted to tell me I couldn't publish an article in a magazine because of "that clause in the agreement". The judge dissagreed.
Next, they would not allow me to negatiate any of the terms of the "confidentiality agreement" concerning the matters listed above therefore the judge didn't think we entered into a legally binding agreement.
When they tried to argue that I "might" be divulging trade secrets by proposing the manuscript to the publisher (that contained working source-code of something fairly unique) they were asked to provide a copy that I signed that specifically told me what trade secrets and since I had never been told specifally what trade secrets (only that I may encounter trade secrets) the judge didn't think there was any stadning because how could I have known what trade secrets? in the end, there weren't any.
The list goes on. In the end, I've established legally with the company that I can do whatever I want in my own spare time as long as it isn't substantially similar to their interests but is also common in the trade if it is close to their interests (for example, all businesses need a contact manager, inventory, services, shipping & receiving system of one type or another but not all businesses are niche (where niche is substantially close to the companies interests)). I can work anywhere I want (even a direct competitor) when I leave -- in California and if I have come in contact with trade secrets, they have to notify my in writing of which so I can know)...
I'm still employed and doing fine at the company. I plan soon to start asserting my right to publish articles on advanced topics in my field of trade (I'm a programmer).
In the end, you cannot sign or agree to anything in these agreements that conflict with what rights you have under the law. It is worth it to consult with a legal rep. before you sign anything because you'll see just how weak (or strong) certain clauses in the agreements are (or aren't).
Thanks,
Leabre
Re:Many years ago, (Score:2)
I certainly wouldn't go to work for you if you think it's all fine and good that you can dictate to me what I can or can not do after I've left your employ.
Not to mention, I don't like to work for people that feel they have the right to opress me for years after the fact.
Slavery was abolished in this country a long time ago.
Flame on full baby, I know I'm in the right.
Re:Many years ago, (Score:3, Insightful)
When almost all employees require you to sign obnoxious contracts simply to survive then that ethic is bullshit. I for one am not going to work in a McDonalds simple because unavoidable non-competes leave no other option. You seem to think there is choice in this matter for techies. For the most part, there isn't. Shame on the parent poster for asserting his right to earn a living.
Re:Many years ago, (Score:4, Interesting)
You have protection from this harassment under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Here is a good form letter ("Drop-Dead" Letter to Collection Agencies [clarkhoward.com]) that you can use to assert this right.
Re:Many years ago, (Score:2)
If I were you, I'd call a good lawyer on my on and have a little chat to them about this, asking if these clauses can even be legally enforced in your state. If not, I wouldn't be surprised if you can turn this against them big-time and sue their sorry heinekens to hell and back for harassment and/or attempted fraud, or somesuch.
Re:Many years ago, (Score:3, Interesting)
I have seen credit denied for $13 on a closed credit card account for which, when called, the credit card company was unable to bill, because the debt was purged from their system. Just a data point in a credit reporting agency database.
Holy orphan record, Batman!
Right To Work Laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Non-competes cannot keep you from working in the field, only from working directly for a competitor, provided you're working on *exactly* the same type of project.
As a widget developer, You can work for a competitor that develops gadgets, but not widgets.
Unemployment cannot deny you benifits as long as you make the required 2 contacts per week are actually "available" to work, and register with the state employment agency.
They *cannot* force you to accept employment for which you are not skilled.
Any fool can work on a garbage route(I've actually done it) but if it's not something you've *trained* for, or have prior experience in, they can't make you accept work in that field.
I was out of work for two months, and ran throuh all my computer related employments contacts within the first two weeks. On all my apps for crap jobs I was qualified for (like the garbage route) I stated I expected salary comensurate with my experience. I was making 36K when I got laid off, so that's what I wanted to work at the local Kwik Shop.
Just so you understand I wasn't milking the system, believe me I'd much rather work, all of the "prviously skilled" positions I was looking at all wanted my computer skills in addition to my "job related" skills. I'll work on the garbage route for $8.00 an hour, sure. You want me to fix your computers also? I get paid for those skills, and $8.00 an hour doesn't begin to cover it.
should be the ones paying (Score:2)
I am by no means an authority on this but
Re:should be the ones paying (Score:2)
Employers are reqired by law to pay into the *State* unemployment fund.
I think the point the original poster was trying to make is that rather than collecting unemployment from the state, you should be able to collect it from the employer, and preferably at the same rate you were being paid for working, for the duration of the NCA/NDA.
A view from the other side (Score:5, Interesting)
I rememberd that I was once offered a job at a network security company, which required me to sign a background clearance agreement which stated that they can check every detail of my life, including all emails I've sent before, all news postings, all phone conversations, etc. Basically with one signature, I would have signed away my entire life's information. On top of that, I had to sign an NCA that said if I leave the company, I can't work in the computer security field for two years, or until their patents expire, or some BS like this. It was incredible. But the salary and benefits and stock options were all incredible too. I was making already 6-figures, and this gave me another 45% raise on top of my previous salary, plus stock options in the 6-figure range too. The offer was attracting, but I didn't sign the agreement. They were willing to modify the background checking requirements to my acceptance, but not the NCA. So I just turned it down.
Now that I've started my own software company, we also have a NCA, but it's very comprehensive. When an employee leaves the company, he can't compete directly in the exact same field, doing the exact same work, developing the exact same functionality. And that's only six months. He is not obviously barred from working in the same industry. Frankly, I don't know the legality of this agreement, but we do emphasize this aspect to new employees, as a precaution measure so that they understand the problems. One thing we want to achieve is to make our employees understand the ethical aspects of working in the hi-tech industry, and that's all.
ps: If I had accepted the offer I mentioned, I would be multi-millionaire by now, as the company had been acquired by a larger entity, and the stock options have been converted into the stock of that larger corporation. That's the price for sticking with your principles in life!
Re:A view from the other side (Score:3, Informative)
But don't ask your employer. Ask your own lawyer to get an answer in your best interest.
Re:A view from the other side (Score:3, Funny)
So you, as an employer, and owner of a company wrote up an NCA that you have all employee's sign, but you didn't check to see if it was actually legal? Amazing.
Re:A view from the other side (Score:3, Insightful)
But if that company had gone down and laid you off, you'd be screwed. And that possibility is much more likely around this time (not that someone with the salary you mentioned normally gets laid off).
Consider the Source!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Note how it starts out by getting you all riled up about this poor guy's plight -- his role as the beleaguered sole supporter of his special-needs daughter and the hopelessness conundrum proposed by his circumstances. But if you read it thoroughly, you also see that he was completely vindicated by Excell, the Washington State Employment Security Department, and later, by Volt.
And then, of course, the article launches into the obligatory attack on Microsoft and its evil feudalistic business practices, because who doesn't hate MS, right?
Listen up, people. We live in a FREE country. You don't HAVE to sign a contract with an employment agency if you don't want to, and before you do, you'd sure as hell better read the fine print before you sign up! If they aren't making you a decent offer, then move on to the next agency!! Evaluate them as carefully as you would a prospective employer -- because, in effect, that is what they are.
The knowledge you have and the skills you can leverage are your currency in today's economy. When you accept a job or a contract with someone, it's because you are willing to provide what you know in exchange for what they offer you.
These businesses won't STAY in business for long if they can't recruit quality talent. Hell, if you're good enough, you can negotiate the damn non-compete out of your OWN contract!
Next time you read an article like this -- remember: Always consider the source!
Don't be a fool. (Score:5, Insightful)
My wife went straight from college to mothering, and has never worked, so has few job skills. The company for whom I work (who shall remain nameless) just sold my position to a contracting company, with one weeks' notice. Despite their company policy, they are not giving me any severance whatsoever if I don't take the job with the contractors. The contractors *require* a two-year NCA, and stated unequivocally that anyone who would not sign would lose their job immediately. The contracting company is *huge*, and it is quite likely that any potential job I get may conceivably compete with them somehow.
Did I mention that there aren't really any jobs out there right now? Do you think I'm in a position to fight the contract? No, I signed, and I will try to tough it out as best I can. If I have to leave (or get fired) from the contractor, I will get a new job as quietly as I can, not tell my former boss, and hope they don't notice.
The idea that everyone has free choice in signing contracts is foolish. The bottom line is that a disproportionate amount of power is placed in the hands of employers during hard economic times. They should not be able to do anything they chose because of that. The solution you propose -- which as I read it is pure Laissez-faire -- was more or less tried in the 19th century. It resulted in horrible abuses, and horrible conditions for working people. It resulted in the unlimited importation of cheap labor from foreign countries (every read "The Jungle"?) It resulted in 60 hour work-weeks for 12-year-old kids. All this was done as good examples of "free enterprise". It was in reaction to these conditions that labor unions were formed and fair labor practices laws were passed.
It is no coincidence that these abuses started at a time of great economic growth (the Industrial Revolution.) The laissez-faire approach might work in a smaller economy. However, the creation of shared-stock companies has the effect of watering down the process of making ethical decisions so that no one feels personally responsible. Instead, everyone operates on a scheme of plausible deniability. It is correct and appropriate in such cases for the government -- who created the shared stock company as a separate persona in its own right in the first place -- to take action to ensure just and moral practices.
Re:Don't be a fool. (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you assuming this is true? Or did you actually speak to a lawyer to find out if this was indeed true? If it were me, I'd go to the nearest law school or I'd contact my local Bar association and ask for a cheap referral.
Assuming this is false, then you could anonymously let all your coworkers know about it and see what happens.
Re:Consider the Source!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Your arguments are entirely specious, and you are doing exactly what you are accusing the article of doing. You infer that the factual information put forth in the article about "this poor guy's plight" and the "evil feudalistic business practices" are incorrect, but you don't provide any proof to back it up. So, at this point, I think many of us will choose to believe the article's statements of fact until they are proved to be inaccur
California Laws (Score:2)
Re:California Laws (Score:2)
Lucent v. Cisco (Score:5, Funny)
The best reference [redherring.com] to the case I could find just mentions that the judge couldn't find any injury to Lucent but also that he found fault the management practices that caused them to leave in the first place. I'm not sure what happened on appeal.
I wish you (Score:4, Funny)
And by the time SCO completed the world domination, you'd have to relocate to Mars.
I was forced to sign a non complete clause (Score:4, Insightful)
Well the guy was a major asshole and abusive. I was fired or quit depending on who you talk to only on the third day. Since they offered me a shitty substandard 7/hr for a tech job I was not real excited about it anyway.
I found another employer who I liked a month later that paid almost twice as much! No silly contract either. No lawsuits, nata.
Most employers that do this are either jerks, greedy, or under extreme financial pressure and you have to ask yourself, "do you really want to work for them"?
I read alot of comments here stating if somebody does not the clause then they should not take it. However under economic situations that may not be possible. I would also advise others to leave the field.
After all the industry is replacing you with Indians, putting in slimy clauses, treating you like property, lobbiny congress to increase H1b1 visa's to brind down your demand to blue colar wages, etc! The other white collar industry does not have this bullcrap. Show them what you think. I for one will not put up with it.
Volt harassed him? (Score:3, Insightful)
I did a contract with Volt before. That company is basically resume stain. They did absolutely *nothing* to help me find another job after my contract ran out. Not a damn thing.
Contracting sucks. It really does. Companies like Spherion and Volt wind up being sweatshop employers. Ugh.
Not so bad... (Score:3, Redundant)
In the end, if it came down to it, and non-competes were enforced on everyone then only beginners who have never been in the field would be able to get a job.
I don't believe in breaking contracts but I do consult with a legal representative before signing my agreements (yeah, the $5k retainers suck)... in the end, non-completes and contracts that aren't nagotiable aren't legally binding. Anything I invent in my own time isn't theirs, either.
Of course, it's been attempting to claim something of mine I wrote they argued that because they were paying me a salary I was on their time. A few facts first... in California, unless you make about $100k you are not exempt from being paid overtime (you are not "salaried" so that argument didn't hold up well because I wasn't pre-approved for overtime when working at home or they refuse to pay me for all the hours I worked at home because for purposes of overtime pay, they don't recognize "what [I] do in [my] own spare time".
Next, it didn't hold up because I spent quite a sum of money on dev tools and support incidents at $245 a pop with MS and while they company was quick to point out that I was working on their time ("in the garage at my home") when asked if they would expense those expenses because it was "their time" they said what I do with my own money in my own time is not their responsibility.
Next when they were asked why they hired me they responded that they hired me because I have well established experience doing exactly what I do, and what I did for them. I didn't learn it on the job and I didn't pick up any secrets while working there. Further more, what I did in my own spare time didn't even relate to the company or any of my responsibilities at the company or any of anyone elses responsibilities at the company, they just wanted to tell me I couldn't publish an article in a magazine because of "that clause in the agreement". The judge dissagreed.
Next, they would not allow me to negatiate any of the terms of the "confidentiality agreement" concerning the matters listed above therefore the judge didn't think we entered into a legally binding agreement.
When they tried to argue that I "might" be divulging trade secrets by proposing the manuscript to the publisher (that contained working source-code of something fairly unique) they were asked to provide a copy that I signed that specifically told me what trade secrets and since I had never been told specifally what trade secrets (only that I may encounter trade secrets) the judge didn't think there was any stadning because how could I have known what trade secrets? in the end, there weren't any.
The list goes on. In the end, I've established legally with the company that I can do whatever I want in my own spare time as long as it isn't substantially similar to their interests but is also common in the trade if it is close to their interests (for example, all businesses need a contact manager, inventory, services, shipping & receiving system of one type or another but not all businesses are niche (where niche is substantially close to the companies interests)). I can work anywhere I want (even a direct competitor) when I leave -- in California and if I have come in contact with trade secrets, they have to notify my in writing of which so I can know)...
I'm still employed and doing fine at the company. I plan soon to start asserting my right to publish articles on advanced topics in my field of trade (I'm a programmer).
In the end, you cannot sign or agree to anything in these agreements that conflict with what rights you have under the law. It is worth it to consult with a legal rep. before you sign anything because you'll see just how weak (or strong) certain clauses in the agreements are (or aren't).
Thanks,
Leabre
Virginia (Score:2, Interesting)
And they own all your thoughts too ... (Score:5, Interesting)
After months worth of managers badgering me to fill out the form, I signed it "Mickey Mouse" and returned it.
IANAL, but if you don't sign using your real name is the document legal? Your honor, exhibit A. An Intellectual Property agreement signed by Mickey Mouse? Huh? What?
Also, I learned that even if you do spend $$$ on a lawyer then go to court and get a judgement in your favor, it can be nearly impossible to collect and you are out lawyer fees. Let an exemployer sue me and a non-compete. I won't even show up. They can get a summary judgement and try to collect.
Also, it is a good idea not to tell a current employer why you are quitting or where you are planning to work next. The less information anyone has the better off you are.
IMHO when an employer stops paying me, all agreements with them are null and void. However, if I run off with trade secrets or proprietary info then that's a different matter, but I believe we already have "corporate espionage" laws which cover this.
I am not sure what is going to kill America first, "stupid people" or "lawyers".
Some merit to this article (Score:2)
These contracts are taking the place of actual legislation. If every company makes you sign an agreement that says "I promise not to ever sue for sexual harrassment or I will not get any severance or pension", then in effect, the contracts have negated sexual harrassment laws. You then have to fight your employer in court, at which point the ba
Finland enforces compensation by employer (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL, but I have this textbook concerning Finnish business law, which is written as a series of FAQ meant to be easily understood by small business owners and self-employed people. One point specifically deals with non-compete agreements:
- The total duration cannot ever exceed 1 year, under any circumstance.
- If the duration is 1 month or less, the employee is not entitled to any compensation.
- If the duration exceeds 1 month, the employer must continue paying the full salary and benefits until the non-compete agreement has expired.
IIRC other EU countries deal with this in a similar way.Welcome to the future! (Score:4, Insightful)
If Microsoft were replaced with a dozen or so smaller companies that were in competition with each other, they couldn't afford to do this sort of thing to their workers.
Gentlemen's Non-Compete (Score:3)
Other than that, I will never sign an NCA (an NDA is another matter) nor would I ever expect anyone I hire to do so. Stuff like that gives me a rash.
Figure out a more fair non-compete (Score:3)
Non-compete period = Severance pay period (Score:3, Insightful)
My wife (in New Zealand) works for a language school and has a clause in her contract not to start up another language school with-in two years within 200km of her current employer. This clause is being broken left right and centre in the language school industry in Christchurch.
I think it sux. It probably won't matter soon with SARS threatening the industry, but I'll certainly advise her not to sign such a contract again.
There are 2 kinds of non-competes (Score:3, Informative)
The second kind prevents you from soliciting customers from your employer if you leave and go to work for a competitor. This type is ok as far as I can tell as it prevents companies from planting people in their competitors' companies just to steal customers.
Responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
What he signed was not a non-compete agreement. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you read the article, you'll see that section six says:
What this is supposed to do is allow Volt to regain their investment in dealing with your resume, interviews, payroll, etc. by preventing companies from putting out week-long or two-week long contracts to see if they like you.
It's also designed to prevent other temp agencies from using Volt's temps as a pool of resources for future contracts.
The fact that somebody from MS called some company and said "I want him" pretty much means that Volt should get stuffed (IANAL, YMMV, YRANA, etc.)
This whole thing might have been avoided if Doug had called the MS guy back up and said, "call Volt". Then again, maybe not.
The fact that the Volt people are willing to engage in harassment and criminally coercive actions just means that I'll never be working for them again.
Re:I'll point out: (Score:2)
While severence pay is common, nobody is legally entitled to it.
Re:NCA (Score:2, Insightful)