Non-Competes Might Mean Loss Of Benefits

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."

Comments

Finland enforces compensation by employer

[Quietti]

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.

Sorry, still good reason not to sign

[MickLinux]

Actually, there's a problem here. America is technically a common-law country, and also has laws prohibiting ex-post-facto decisions. However, the way our government has behaving, it may as well be a written-law country.

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.