Slashdot Mirror
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."
Dont sign the non-compete agreement. I've never had an employment offer widthdrawn because of it.
.
Want to put non-competitive clause in my contract? Fine, but then I want you to pay me salary during the perioid.
It has to be a balance in the system.
I seem to recall reading a few years ago, during the boom, that "non-compete" clauses COULD NOT prevent you from taking a job for fear of getting sued. That they were basically bullshit, in fact. A whole "right to work" thing.
Anyone have the facts on this?
If he didn't want one before, I'm sure the guy would like a full-time gig. I've always been uneasy with contracting companies. It has never seemed like a good deal to me. I've been fortunate that I've been able to find full time employment. For me, a contracting company would be a last choice. They demand too much and provide too little in return.
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
but the last time a lawyer explained the non compete laws to me they were enforceable on a limited basis, with the limitations differing by state.
Personally, I think the employers with whom you have a non-compete agreement should be the ones paying you unemployment benefits
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*.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I'm not allowed to sysadmin Windows 2000-through-2005, but haha they called it Windows XP.
I am pretty sure it is time for me to seriously consider putting the IT scum sector behind me for good. I'm sure there is more career satisfaction in being a garbage man. At least people appreciate your efforts ;-)
My wife (just graduated law school, yet to pass the bar) was leafing through an old non-compete of mine and was rolling on the floor due to the laughable language. Due to its ludicrous nature (and liberal use of the word "forever") she informed me that its 'bullshit' (I believe that is a technical law term).
;)
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!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
That's why I wonder about people who go with contract "employment" over the long term. It's an inherently unstable environment, that can get some decent $$$ in the short term, but over the long term requires tremendous discipline to maintain retirement savings, health insurance, etc. My first piece of advice to this guy would be to get a full-time job with benefits, even if its not a great tech job (if things are so precarious with caring for his daughter). Relative stability is worth something...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Generally speaking, I don't believe you have to take any position offered you. I was unemployed for five months and was offered a new position at an extremely lower wage than the position I had previously held. In order to circumvent the problem of either taking the job or losing my unemployment benefits, I called the company back and told them that my "requested salary" was much higher than what they were offering. At that point, they rescinded the job offer and I, of course, reported that I had had no job offers since technically I hadn't ;-)
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.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
...is higher unemployment insurance rates.
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.
Non-competes are not enforceable in the state of California. It's perfectly legitimate for a company to demand you not divulge company secrets when you change jobs, but they can not prevent you from working in your field of expertise.
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.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Personally, I think the employers with whom you have a non-compete agreement should be the ones paying you unemployment benefits.
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.
I had to sign one of these to get a job.
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...
Don't ever become a contractor. Although I have non-compete agreements but I'm not a contractor.
Ah, the business world. Where freedom doesn't ring.
One of the nice things about living in Nebraska.
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.
Just once, I'd like it if someone called me "Sir".
Without adding, "You're creating a scene."
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).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
You're right of course. Killing the economy is the domain of government, coporations, their boards and CEO's, not the common man.
Sigs are bad for your health.
Non-compete agreements (NCA) are not necessarily bad, not all of them. If you are careful to read the details, and understand the real meaning of each sentence (i.e. don't be afraid to ask questions!), it's ok to sign NCA if it's not abusive.
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!
This article is so unbelieveably biased that I didn't even have to look at the source to realize that it was Union rag.
....Bethanie....
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!
Can't find the original story I read, but I remember that Lucent once tried to sue a number of former employees who left to join Cisco. IIRC the judge laughed the suit out of court partly due to the fact that he found Lucent's technology to be so far behind Cisco's at the time that he couldn't see any chance of Cisco actually being able to use any of Lucent's obsolete "secrets".
The best reference 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.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
didn't sign non-compete agreement with SCO. If so, you'd be required stay out of all companies in association with UNIX, Linux, and since Microsoft admitted UNIX licensing, Windows. Yes, that's basically the entire world, and that's what SCO is competing with. :)
And by the time SCO completed the world domination, you'd have to relocate to Mars.
Same in California, and for the rest of the country, I believe. I own a small business and I pay a percentage of each employee's gross up to a set amount, over which I don't pay anything. This comes out of my pocket, not the employee's. When someone files for unemployment, they draw against these contributions. If too many people draw unemployment, my percentages go up -- an incentive to keep people working, I guess.
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.
Whether or not non-competes hold any legal water, you still have to be able to fight them in court if your ex company tries to persue it. And, in order to effectively fight, you have to have money and time. But, if you're out of a job, you're probably not in the best position to fight anything. And, if you are willing to fight, odds are that the case will be dragged out for months or even years while they bury you in paper work (BTW, IANAL. insert more anoying acronyms here, etc. etc.)
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.
Actually, things like welfare and universal health coverage are good for the economy. The former does things like flatten out the business cycle by increasing spending counter-cyclicly (to people who will spend all the money on goods and services instead of saving it) and the latter reduces costs to the overall economy by improving health standards (it's cheaper to prevent illness than cure it)
But more importantly, they're a sign of a civilised society.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
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.
You betcha. If you get "Laid Off" make damn sure you get it in writing. That way the company can't claim they fired you, or that you quit.
Just once, I'd like it if someone called me "Sir".
Without adding, "You're creating a scene."
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.
http://saveie6.com/
Wow, that's pretty.. interesting.
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.
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.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Please think of this next Christmas when you're watching the Corporate News.
In California this is a right-to-work state so those non-compete's don't have any effect because you have to work to make a living and the only way to work is to practice your trade.
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
has a "right to work" law. It basically states that you as an individual have a right to work. If a company has made you sign a non-compete, they can not force you not to work. They can either pay your salary until the clause is over, or let you go. You just can't use proprietary information from the old in the new.
While working as a contractor at Ford, a new form appeared one day that I was required to sign. It was an addendum to the contractor agreement which covered all intellecutal property either real or imagined. It also stated that Ford had ownership any thoughts I might have while at work or off hours. It was unbelievable.
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".
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.Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
My brother lost his job over not signing a non-compete. He was in the middle of developing a new product line for the company, and they said "well, finish up the development first", and he did. It was a new technology for the company, too: sending data over the power lines.
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?
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Same thing happened to my husband. He was at his company for two years. They came out with this non compete in their employee manual which everybody had to sign. Besides him not being able to go to another ISP anytime soon, his spouse couldn't work for a competitor either. So essentially, they limit who I can work for as well... He didn't want to sign it, but they were going to blacklist anybody who didn't. We both know that was intimidation and he'd have grounds to fight... neither of us have any ability to afford a lawyer though.
This is what Microsoft means when they clamor for "free markets and competition": high-tech feudalism and indentured servitude.
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.
About the only non-compete I will ever agree to (and in fact, have agreed to) is that I won't go seeking business from his customers. If they come to me, I feel somewhat obligated to let him know about it, so that he can fix whatever issue may have caused them to seek me out.
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.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
The only non-compete's I've ever signed have basically stated I would not call on my current customers for 1 year after my last call with them. This is sound and reasonable, after one year much of the sway you have as an insider is gone and yet you can still work your trade with all the other potential customers out there. The consultancy I am about to start with has a blanket NCA that I have already told the owner I refuse to sign. He asks that you not practice your trade in a 50 mile radius of the HQ for 3 years. I told him I would bring forth one of my other NCA's and sign it for his company but that I would not force myself to move just because I was no longer working for him. I mean every time you move you lose a ton on realestate agent fees, mortage fees, etc. Besides I like being near my parents and my wife loves being near the inlaws, not being near them would be a major quality of life decrease for me.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
You can burn down my house, that will be good for the economy, but it certainly won't be good for me.
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.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Straight from my lawyer: If you live in a "Right to Work" state, your non-compete is probably worth zilch to your employer (or former employer), other than as a scare tactic.
I left a company a couple of years ago in a right to work state. They sent me a letter after I left, stating I could not do web development in the region the company operated (I had been a wev developer for them). However, after a call from my lawyer to their lawyer, they backed off fast. Even their lawyer wouldn't back there play!
Check the laws in your state.
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
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.
Pay me X months of severance pay and I promise not to compete for X months. Simple.
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.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
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.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
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.
Again untrue. In fact it does exactly the opposite. By decoupling the decision to consume from the obligation to pay, these schemes explicitly destroy the mechanisms which previously kept cost low and quality high, and have resulted in skyrocketing health care costs.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
that's how it works in France.
You signed a non-compete agreement, have been fired/resigned. You can look for a job anywhere, if you land one, you must tell your former employer, who will then decide if he wants to enforce the non-compete part of your contract. If he does, he has to pay for your salaries for the period he prevents you to work.
i had a sig, once..
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I have a NCA in my contract too, but in Belgium the law has placed some reasonable limits on it.
1. The duration of any NCA is limited to 1 year.
2. It cannot be overly broad.
3. It only applies if the employee takes the initiative to leave the company.
4. When the employee leaves, the company has 2 weeks to tell him whether they want to enforce it or not
5. If the company chooses to enforce the NCA, they have to pay the employee his full salary for half of the duration of the NCA, so if you're under NCA for 1 year, they have to pay you 6 months worth of salary.
6. In case of a suspected violation of the NCA, the burden of proof is on the company to show that they actually suffered damages. Courts tend to side with the employee on these matters.
So despite what many Americans think, there really are some benefits of having a socialist government.
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.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
I lived in Japan for eight years, and I had universal health care the whole time.
;-) ). Could the ready availability of decent health care have something to do with this longevity in the face of excess? I think so.
What I observed during that time is that the high-end of medical care in the US is higher and better than that generally available in Japan, and hospital rooms are a lot posher (I was hospitalized for a week there once, and while it was rather spartan, it also cost me very little), the Japanese average is much closer, and the low-end is much, much better than the U.S. (where the low-end is people with no insurance and low income, who often can't afford much medical care and put it off until the emergency room is needed).
The Japanese universal health insurance system works like this: you have national health insurance. It may be the general public insurance type, or it may be the employer-paid type, depending on your job (full-time workers generally have the latter).
If you need medical care or dental, you go to the provider of your choice, so long as they take national health insurance (the great majority do) and pay the co-payment (30% for the fomer type, 10% for the latter type) and you are treated. No forms, no muss, no fuss.
How much you pay for insurance depends on your salary the year before, so if you're poor, that makes your health insurance nearly free (yes, there is an upper cap on premiums; having a good salary doesn't put the whole thing into health insurance).
Japanese national health insurance has something of a looming liquidity problem as a result of a rapidly aging population, but that doesn't detract from its effectiveness at getting people decent health care.
Japan has the longest life expectancy in the world, for both men and women, despite how much so many Japanese men drink, and despite how many of them are heavy smokers (most Japanese men smoke, as do an increasing number of Japanese women, and based on my observations, I'd guess that the average Japanese male smoker consumes at least a pack a day, and heavy drinking after work is quite common (commuting by train has its advantages
This is 'good for the economy' in the same way that eating a big bag of sugar is good for your body
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 decoupling the decision to consume from the obligation to pay, these schemes explicitly destroy the mechanisms which previously kept cost low and quality high, and have resulted in skyrocketing health care costs.
Right. People get sick just to cash in on the health system. Seeing the doctor too often is much better than not enough. And the last time I looked, places like the US had skyrocketing health costs. Government health systems control health costs because the industry essentially has one customer - the government. The government sets how much it will pay for services and the doctors can like it or go without customers.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
"But, if you're out of a job, you're probably not in the best position to fight anything."
:)
If you're violating a non-compete agreement, you're not out of a job.
Someone dies, and the government wants money. Sounds like a "Death Tax" to me.
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. It's like oxygen. The O2 you breathe in today, somebody breathed in 2000 years ago. And by dinosaurs before that. The two bucks I spend for a beer, I already paid taxes on, should that mean the bar is tax exempt? Some people don't realize, you gotta pay for things somehow. You want to invade third-world countries, it costs money (you can't always steal it from their oil). You want to lock up people who smoke dope, it costs money. You want to give big subsidies to farmers, defense contractors, shopping mall developers, it costs money. You want star wars missle shields, it costs money. You want to hire border guards, it costs money. You want to build roads, it costs money. Why shouldn't you be taxed? We gotta pay for that crap somehow, we don't have all the kinks out of perpetual motion yet.
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.
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.
See my journal, I write things there
The first kind prevents you from working in your general field if doing so presents competition for your employer. This kind is very unethical and usually will not hold water in court. Some states, like Georgia, have specific laws making such agreements illegal and punishable by civil fines. Some people still sign them, but in general it is either illegal or at the very least not recognized by courts that one employer can prevent you from getting a job in the field in which you have your expertise.
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.
Not necessarily. Perhaps the repairman is far more likely to utilize that same money for more productive uses than the previous owner...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
I know this won't get read, but I have to weigh in with this point that seems overlooked: NCAs are simply an artificial method to keep wages down. After all, you wouldn't generally worry about someone jumping ship if you were willing to pay them what someone else was; the NCA eliminates the conversation where the employee asks for a raise on the grounds he has an offer elsewhere. Hell, it eliminates the "offer elsewhere" entirely.
Hmmm, it also seems to interfere with the free market by eliminating currently employed people from the potential labor pool. If widely adopted, the standard NCA would effectively bring about a new Soviet-style state where no one could ever leave their jobs. But I guess theoretically you could still choose your first (and only) job. Sweet!
Play the "corportae responsibility" trump card. Let them know that you are willing to sign the non-compete if-and-only-if they take responsibility for your unemployability while it is in force (like establishing a nice severence package *NOW*).. "If you have the power and desire to take away my livelyhood for your corporate gain for the time given, you will take responsibility for my livelihood until that period is over" .. or you can give me a nice lump sum.
meh
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.
Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
Non-competes are unenforcable and to date (as far as I know) have NEVER gone to court. Microsoft has bullied people with their non-compete clause and forced people to fire their Microsoft employees. And when I worked at Amazon, they made me sign a 10 year non-compete.
Non-competes are inherently non-enforcable because they make it impossible for alot of people to find work in their field. True some people can go on to find work if their jobs were not specific in nature but for those whose jobs WERE specific to the company , a non-compete clause puts them out of work and keeps them out of work making it illegal.
I am honestly surprised that no one has ever challenged them to date.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
The whole "some people will make it big" argument is pointless. Yes, some people will make it big. To be precise, rather few people will make it big. Even fewer will make it big by doing something useful. And sure, those people will arguably deserve to be better off than most other people. But how much? Enough to create third-world style income and wealth disparities? The point is that *everyone* can't make it big. And the people who do make it big depend on the existence of all the ones who don't. Someone has to do the actual work. Work is useful. The people who didn't make it big are not worthless. And in a system which is arranged to keep employment less than full for purposes of "marketplace discipline", even unemployment is useful. Or, if it isn't, it's at least required--deliberately built in. When unemployment gets too low, and the economy is considered to be "overheating" (which is to say, people might start demanding decent wages) then interest rates get pumped up to strangle the problem. Meanwhile, on an individual firm basis we know perfectly well that layoffs are essentially random nowadays. You can be a good worker who put in a good, and even innovative, day's work for 25 years and you're gone tomorrow--quick exit interview and led out by security. Given that, blaming the unemployed people for being unemployed, or people who work at boring, backbreaking jobs for working at them, is a bit beside the point. What would we do if they stopped? We'd find out what they mean when they say "Any urban area is 24 hours away from barbarism". If we're going to have structural unemployment, which *is* an economic choice, we have something of a duty to the people we have structurally unemployed. And if we're going to have a society that runs on hard work, we should pay decent wages to the people who do it. This mythology that the only people creating value are "entrepreneurs" like the folks who ran Enron is dangerous nonsense.
Given the current "glut" of tech workers, companies can do anything they like and insist that you sign virtually any document. If you don't like it...next tech applicant please... All of us who live in the Peoples Republic of Amerika know that most court cases are won based on financial resources expended. If you cannot take on a corporation, give it up. For example, I know a number of tech workers who were fired right after they turned 50. They were absolutly forced to sign a myriad of "agreements" to get their pitance. One person told me that "the company" assured them that they would lose their house and savings before they ever had their day in court if they did not like it. The law in Amerika is by and for the wealthy like our politicians. O.J. - need I say more.