Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Seagate Says Ex-Employee Can't Work For Competitor

Posted by simoniker on from the knows-too-much dept.

deweller writes "According to a story at MacCentral, Hard drive maker Seagate Technology LLC is seeking a court injunction to prevent a former employee, Pete Goglia, from going to work for Western Digital Corp. any time in the next 2 years, saying Goglia knows too much about Seagate's hard-drive reading and writing technology to work for a competitor."

44 of 585 comments (clear)

  1. Did he sign an NDA or not? by garcia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I read about this story when it broke on Friday I found nothing that mentioned that Goglia had signed an NDA *but* he had been working there for seventeen years and was the executive director of the Recording Head Division.

    Now, if Seagate hadn't had the man sign some sort of NDA that specifically stated he wouldn't work for a competitor for two years then I really don't think that they have too much to stand on until WD comes out with a strikingly similar product (which inevitably they will).

    1. Re:Did he sign an NDA or not? by Moofie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seems to me that if Goglia can do major commercial harm to Seagate by not working there anymore, Seagate should have ample motivation to match and exceed any offers he might get.

      I say the employer can go screw. If the guy's irreplaceable, or has valuable information they can't afford to lose control of, pay the man.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  2. Don't see a problem by yamla · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I see no problem with this whatsoever, provided of course that Seagate does the only reasonable thing and pays this ex-employee the greater of what he'd have earnt working at Seagate and what he was offered at Western Digital over the next two years.

    Now, if they aren't willing to do this, they are essentially trying to stop this guy from earning a living by working in his field. And that is unreasonable and illegal in most places.

    --

    Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
  3. Non-Competes.... by Hanna's+Goblin+Toys · · Score: 5, Interesting

    These exist on the very fringe of legal contract law. I would be very surprised if any of them have withstood a jury trial. Can a legal agreement which prevents a worker from working to feed his family be legal? Non-competes are valid even if you are fired, meaning they can fire you and prevent you from working for a competitor, which is basically contractually enforced unemployment. This would seem to be highly UnAmerican(tm) and I think the courts would frown on it.

    What is the case law precendent?

    1. Re:Non-Competes.... by Aneurysm9 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can't cite precedent right now, but I can tell you that non-compete clauses are generally valid and have survived both jury trial and appellate review. That said, such clauses must typically be appropriately limited in scope. They cannot prevent employment for excessive time periods, two years is likely to be found not to be excessive. They cannot prevent employment in businesses unrelated to the former company's core business. Since Seagate and WD both make hard drives, I don't think that one will be a problem either. As for such clauses being UnAmerican, nothing could be further from the truth. It's a classic example of American thinking, use your power to prevent the competition from horning in on your resources, human or natural.

      --
      There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
    2. Re:Non-Competes.... by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Over the last year or so there was a case in Quebec -- EA tried to pilfer some of UbiSoft's top guys, who had a non-compete clause in their contract. Lawsuit(s) ensued and the non-compete clause was found to be valid.

    3. Re:Non-Competes.... by hendrik42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In Germany, this kind of contract is valid but your former employer has to pay the difference between the salary in your old job and the one in your new job for the 2 years. So, if you have a contract like that - be happy, quit your job and go back to school :-) If the contract does not contain a salary-difference clause like that, you can either sue the company into paying it anyway or you can just ignore the whole thing and work for anyone.

    4. Re:Non-Competes.... by Aneurysm9 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, I think in most states continued employment is not sufficient consideration for a non-compete clause. The theory is that it's unduly coercive because of the unequal bargaining power of the parties when one party controls the ability of the other to earn a living. Now, if you don't already have a contract and are employed at will, then your employer certainly could require a contract as a condition of continued employment and a non-compete clause as a condition of a contract, but if you already have a contract then some additional consideration is required for a non-compete to be valid and refusal to agree to a non-compete will not likely be viewed as justification for the employer to breach the existing contract and terminate your employment.

      --
      There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
    5. Re:Non-Competes.... by abb3w · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Non-competes are valid even if you are fired, meaning they can fire you and prevent you from working for a competitor, which is basically contractually enforced unemployment.

      I crashed a college engineering class where a contract lawyer was giving a guest lecture on the subject of NDAs and non-competes. He presented a compromise that several of his clients have used to modify the non-compete agreement to be more equitable to both sides. (I've got the boilerplate handout somewhere in my papers.)

      In the event an employee leaves his job, voluntarily or involuntarily, the non-compete kicks in. But the company must continue to pay his full salary so long as he submits to the company each month:

      1) Proof that the ex-employee is actively seeking employment in their chosen profession.
      2) Evidence (EG, a job offer from a competitor) that the non-compete agreement is the only thing keeping the employee from current employment.
      Each month you're looking for work and the non-compete keeps you from taking it, the company must send you your a check. If they decide they're sick of paying you, they may opt to include with the check a letter releasing you from your non-compete. You spend the month surfing in Australia instead of looking, you don't get paid for that month, but the checks resume afterwards.

      If what you and what you know are worth squat, your salary is worth the slight expense to keep you and your knowledge out of the hands (or brains) of the competition. If the company is worth squat, they'll be willing to pay this as reasonable compensation.

      Not all will--refusals generally come from the same ones whose HR trolls make you sign over every idea you've ever had or will have on anything relevant or irrelevant. Ethical companies will accept, or make a reasonable counter-offer-- so avoid the slimeballs, stick with the ethical companies.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    6. Re:Non-Competes.... by Rumor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That doesn't mean that such clauses are not legally enforceable in Canada, or in the UK. There's a solid foundation of case law supporting the validity of non-competition clauses in both countries. Put very simply, the restrictions must be for a reasonably limited time, and must restrict using the specific knowledge gained from the former employer, but typically not restrict a person from using their general expertise in the area of research/development.

      The fact that your former employer dropped the suit could mean a lot of things, such as: they didn't think it was worth following through, even if they thought they could win; or, they realized there was a good chance a judge would find your non-competition clause to be unreasonable.

      But that doesn't mean it can't be done at all. These kinds of contracts do exist and may be legally enforceable.

    7. Re:Non-Competes.... by WCMI92 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "As for such clauses being UnAmerican, nothing could be further from the truth. It's a classic example of American thinking, use your power to prevent the competition from horning in on your resources, human or natural."

      Such clauses are VERY Anti-American. They give the employer TOTAL power over the employee and violate the spirit of capitalism. Indeed, noncompetes are in many ways a SOCIALIST idea...

      With a noncompete, an employee has no guarantee of employment at that company, yet, has his ability to find other work limited.

      It's a classic case of the corporation wanting to have it both ways... The same capitalist corporation that will, without any qualms, outsorce to India, lay off 5,000 workers, etc to increase their profits suddenly becomes DEVOUT MARXISTS when the EMPLOYEE wants to "fire the company" to do much the same...

      This is one reason why we in IT need to organize.

      Not to form a union, but perhaps an association that we can use to lobby Congress as a large group with some clout to get such things as noncompetes made illegal.

      The last time I was asked to sign a noncompete, I asked how much they were going to pay me to not work... That ended the issue.

      Noncompetes are also on shaky ground legally, despite what you said. Most have language in them that is clearly illegal.

      Not only do most noncompetes violate the law, they are most often imposed on the employee as a condition of employment, AFTER becoming an employee. You never get to see it until after accepting the job, quitting your old one, and being more or less forced to sign.

      Also, under contract law something of value must be granted to both parties to be legal. "Sign this or you lose your job" has been found most of the time to be ILLEGAL, as a contract signed under duress is not consensual.

      Here are legal reforms needed to regulate noncompetes:

      1. Noncompetes must be disclosed to prospective employees during the INTERVIEW process, and furnished in hard copy so that the interviewee can review it with an attorney off site.

      2. Noncompetes become null and void if the employee is fired or laid off.

      3. Noncompetes cannot be used to prevent the employee from working in their field.

      4. The noncompete, if invoked, requires the employer to pay the former employee their previous salary during the time in which they cannot get work. This is in the State's best interest, as otherwise the employee would be drawing unemployment, a burden being unfairly shifted from corporation to taxpayer...

      5. No noncompete can have more than a 6 month duration.

      6. The employer is liable for all legal expenses related to litigating a noncompete, including paying the employee's expenses should they prevail. They should also have to post bond as guarantee of this payment PRIOR to the court accepting any complaint from an employeer with regard to an employee.

      7. Noncompetes that have ANY language in them that would be found in violation of the law would become null and void in their entirety.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
  4. In a related story... by raehl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    CIA tells ex-employee that he can't go work for the KGB.

    I don't see what the big deal is - if you want to work developing ultra-bleeding-edge technology, it seems reasonable that the entity funding that research restrict what you're allowed to do after the fact.

    Just make sure you're appropriately compensated for not being able to work in the same industry for two years, and if not, take a different job.

    And no, I don't want to hear the 'But another job may not be an option!' response either - if you're "good" enough to work on such a project to begin with, you're good enough to get a different job.

    And if you're not good enough to get another job unless you just worked in the ultra-bleeding-edge research department of your potential new employer's competitor, that's an even MORE convincing reason that it's quite reasonable to restrict your future employment.

    --
    paintball
    1. Re:In a related story... by lspd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't see what the big deal is - if you want to work developing ultra-bleeding-edge technology, it seems reasonable that the entity funding that research restrict what you're allowed to do after the fact.

      No, they have the right to restrict the ex-employee from disclosing trade secrets. Sure, in the company's view the best way to keep him from disclosing company trade secrets is to require that he commit suicide when fired...I mean stop working when fired.

      Isn't this the same sort of nonsense that SCO has been bitching about? It's right in the contract. If you ever had access to AT&T source code you must die when you lose access to that source code. It's the only way to be sure that a secret stays a secret.

  5. One Solution by Detritus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would like to see the law changed so that the company is forced to pay the ex-employee full wages and benefits for the length of the non-compete period. If the information is really that valuable, it would be a small price to pay. Otherwise, employees are put into a position where they can't work in their field of expertise, often with little or no compensation.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  6. Not as standard as you think. by CrypticSpawn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I worked for a company for a while without one. Soon I was working on projects which were bringing in millions a month, then they wanted me to sign one. I told them I would let my lawyer look it over, I ended up leaving the company before I had to sign, went ot a competitor ;).

  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. Re:Non-Compete Agreement by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some states do not allow non-compete agreements, usually if the state has some sort of Right-to-Work legislation. I believe California is a right to work state, at least it has other properties of RtW, like not requiring advanced notice that of termination or resignation. I was not able to figure out from the article alone what state this is taking place in. Although since Seagate is mostly located in California, it has to be california. Maybe someone more familiar with CA RtW laws could enlighten us?

    In any case, non-compete clauses should be illegal (but NDAs are okay) because where else is a hard drive expect going to work other than another hard drive company? In a fair market employees should have a right to seek better pay, better location or better management. If you are locked into a non-compete agreement then you have to break into some other industry for your next job.

    A company should be forced to continually improve it's technology to maintain a competitive advantage. I think we can assume that seagate has had suffiecent time to develop and produce whatever secret technology Mr. Goglia has worked on and Seagate should have a pretty significant headstart on their competitors.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  9. Re:Non-Compete Agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Non-compete clauses are usual and fair for consultants and consulting companies. They usually stipulate that the employee can't go and work directly for a client if the employee was introduced to the client by the employer. E.g. if I start working for ConsRUs who send me to work at WeGotsDough for $200/hr, I can't quit after a month and go work for WeGotsDough directly at $50/hr. ConsRUs has spent lots of money marketing its services and will lose its investment if I did such a thing.

    Non-compete agreements are NOT intended nor fair to stop an employee from working for a competitor. If this were the case, some people would have to make major changes in their career if they ever wanted to change employers.

  10. Most Non-Competition agreements are unenforceable by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In many states, Including Oregon, where I am from the non-competes are often uninforceable because they are a restriant of trade. Pretty much any "at will" state, where an employer can fire you for any or no reason at all without concequence also comes with the tradeoff of non-competes being worth less than the paper they are written on. The exception to this is if someone leaves your company to work for the competition. However in most cases these are folks who were laid off or terminated. If you cannot provide this person with work, you absolutely cannot tell them what work they may find elsewhere.

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
  11. Strange... by Hanna's+Goblin+Toys · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When you say "horning in on your resources", do you mean that when GM fires a CAD engineer, they have the right to keep that CAD engineer from doing CAD for the next two years, thereby ruining his resume?

    That seems odd... thanks for the case law info though!

    1. Re:Strange... by chihowa · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It is so easy to convince the politicians that the commonfolk are a threat because the politicians are, by and large, in the same group (if not the exact same people) that is trying to do the convincing. The vast majority of our representatives are not in any way representative of the majority of the population.

      --

      "I judge it lawful, praiseworthy, and expedient for every man, continually to watch over the rights and liberties of his country, and to see that they are violated upon none ... or if they be, speedily to endeavour redress; otherwise such violations, breaches and incroachments will eat like a Gangrene upon the common Liberty, and become past remedy."

      -- John Lilburne, Just Defence, 1653

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  12. This Happens in the Strangest Places by mlmitton · · Score: 2, Interesting
    My brother is an MBA student, and he did a school project for Proctor and Gamble in their pet food division. P&G loved the work that he (and others) did for them. My brother mentioned to the head of Iams that P&G had declined to give him an internship for the summer, so he was going to accept an internship at the pet food division of Colgate. The division head said, "Would you work here if we can find a place for you?" and my brother said he would.

    Well, they didn't find a place for him, so he accepted at Colgate. Then P&G threatens to sue my brother if he goes to Colgate. He signed a NDA agreement when he did the project for P&G, but he *never* signed a non-compete agreement. If he had gone to court over this, he may or may not have won, but the threat alone was sufficient for Colgate to rescind their offer, for fear that they would later be sued by P&G.

    All of this for a measly INTERN!

    If "they" want to stop you from working somewhere, they can, whether or not they're in the right.

    --
    "My girlfriend's got sodium laureth sulfate hair."
  13. Does a small business need a non-compete? by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I signed my first non-compete when I started working for a small interactive firm back in January. Small = I'm one of 3 full-time employees.

    I had been working in academia for 5+ years out of college, and I'd never had to sign one. When I read this one, I was like, "Damn -- I can't get a job somewhere else if this place sucks."

    Honestly, I think NDAs or non-competes are valid for enterprises like Seagate who have to protect their intellectual properties and technologies. However, for a small shops like mine, I just see it as a bit of overkill.

    I'm betting the CEO/founder of my company pissed off some designers/developers along the way who took what he thought were really innovative ideas over to better run shops. Hence the non-compete. But honestly, if I need to find a job in a market that's very small and oversaturated with talent, why make it difficult? Stealing clients is one thing, and re-using your last interactive firm's code is another, but being specifically denied the right to work for a direct competitor where you may do the same shit but for different clients?

    Like I said -- for a small firm, a little overkill, particularly since any asshat (like me) with a few certifications and previous experience can most likely do anything your little company might have thought of on his/her own. It's not like creativity is unique to your firm.

    Sigh -- and I'm looking for new work too. Makes me worry what I'll be allowed and NOT allowed to do in my new job.

    My 2 cents. Don't spend 'em all in one place.

    IronChefMorimoto

  14. Re:Do they have a no-compete by proj_2501 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    they can say things like "oh, then you won't be needing this severance package/continuing healthcare/unemployment insurance"

  15. Re:What's their problem with this? by pappy97 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem is that not everything Seagate is protected by patents. There are TRADE SECRETS, the forgotten prong of IP, you know.

    Seagate likely has trade secrets it is scared this ex-employee will divulge, which is why Seagate likely made 'em sign the non-compete in exchange for his Seagate job.

    The Federal Trade Secret Act provides remedies for Seagate against this guy civally and criminally, but that won't be enough if he does divulge a TS to a competitor.

    Seagate has a legitimate concern, but it will be up to the courts to see how reasonable the non-compete is. Many states allow courts to strike and rewrite unreasonable terms, usually relating to duration and geography limitations.

  16. Re:Pete signed a confidentiality agreements by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    According to this article, he did sign something.

    Well, I recall once being terminated for breach of some sort of contract I allegedly signed. I did not, however, sign any such agreement and they were unable to produce evidence to support their claims.

    In short, just because they said it doesn't make it any more true than any of SCO's claims.

    Considering the duration of his employment, I would be only a little bit surprised if he had signed anything like that. Seems like it has been only within the past 10 years that companies really started getting into those kinds of agreements.

  17. NOT a non-compete by ca1v1n · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He's been there for 17 years. Non-competes weren't trendy back then, and if he was under one, it would have been mentioned. It also wouldn't be newsworthy. He is, however, under NDA. The argument that Seagate is trying to make is that it is impossible for him to honor the NDA if he takes the job. Now that we actually do have companies requiring employees to sign non-competes, the stark comparison is going to make Seagate look really weak here. In order to be valid, a contract must represent a "meeting of the minds". This means that both sides have to understand what they're getting into, or if they don't, it's because someone screwed up in the reading of it, rather than someone deliberately writing a confusing contract. It's pretty easy to argue that Pete Goglia could not reasonably have been expected to understand that the NDA was implicitly a non-compete. The bigger danger is really on Western Digital's end, as this opens them up to potential litigation for misappropriation of trade secrets for anything they come out with in the near future, regardless of whether or not any trade secrets were in fact misappropriated.

    I don't know what was like for him there, but I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that all of this probably could have been avoided if Seagate had given him a raise, better benefits, and perhaps more respect around the office. Courts have a tendency of drawing the same conclusion, and don't really like attempts like this to keep employees from taking jobs with competitors. They'll uphold an explicit and unambiguous non-compete, but I'd be absolutely astonished if they go for this legal theory.

    --
    WARNING: there is a trojan on your
  18. Re:Do they have a no-compete by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My employer recently asked me to sign a non-compete. I was doing some research, and this is one of the things I turned up. Maybe it's not the most credible of sources, but it's something:

    http://jobsearchtech.about.com/library/weekly/aa04 2202.htm

    Consider also the benefits you can receive upon leaving... severance, additional pay, stock, etc. All you have to do is sign.

  19. Re:Non-Competes.... completely wrong by aurelian · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The circumstances in the UK are similar to most of the rest of the western modern world: appropriately scoped non-compete agreements are allowable and enforceable.

    Second that. In a similar vein, my contract (I work as an R&D consultant) says I'm not allowed to work for any of our clients for 12 months - to stop them poaching me I guess.

  20. I suggest they BUY his time by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If they don't want to employee him for the next two years in a manner or salary that is equitable then darn them to heck and let him seek employment elsewhere without their meddling, Dang it all!

    Else they should give him a two year paid vacation and be done with it.

    Look at it as an investment in their market position.

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
  21. Re:Do they have a no-compete by franois-do · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I do not know about US laws, but in France a non-compete clause would be considered invalid unless the employer *pays* the employee each month as long as the non-compete clause applies. This is the principle "you cannot get from somebody something that you do not pay for". Some of my friends having non-compete clauses have contracts specifying that they will get 30% of their former salary for the two years following their resignation as a compensation for that clause, which is a real handicap in finding a new job.

    --
    Signature omitted in order to save space. Thanks for your understanding.
  22. Non-Competes vs IP? by MachDelta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Really? Thats interesting.

    I wonder... The company I work for here in Canada had me sign an agreement when I was hired that basically said that if I came up with any brilliant, million-dollar ideas related to the industry for two years (IIRC) after I left the company, they'd basically "own" those ideas. I thought it was kind of strange to try and claim someone elses "IP" like that, and wondered to myself if they had ever tried to enforce it. Anyone know? I sincerely doubt its ever happened, since the company is primarilly shipping and logistics... not a whole hell of a lot of room to drastically innovate, unless you happen to invent a teleporter or something... but now i'm curious if these kinds of agreements are legal in Canada too, seeing as how the competition-employment ones are (apparently) not.

    Quick! Where's a 'IAAL' on Slashdot when you need one!? (Oh, wait...)

  23. Re:Non-Competes.... completely wrong by tonyr60 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmmm, in this part of the western world (New Zealand) it appears that the employment court starts from the position that they are invalid, but then looks to see if some constraint is justified...

    http://www.howtolaw.co.nz/html/ml126.asp

    Which sounds rather similar to the other situations cited here.

  24. Total Disclosure... by MrIcee · · Score: 2, Interesting
    We have the opposite policy to a NDA at one of my companies... we have a Total Disclosure Agreement which means that anything anyone knows about ANYTHING WHATSOEVER they must disclose to everyone else. It works out fairly well, and is fairly humorous to everyone - people go out of their way to make sure they disclose everything they can.

    Conversations generally go like this "well, this is under NDA but since I have to conform to our TDA, here's the info..."

    We did this because of all the utterly stupid NDA's we've had to sign over the years.

  25. Re:Do they have a no-compete by proj_2501 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was speaking in more general terms than this particular case.

    Friends of mine have run into trouble with this sort of thing, unable to obtain unemployment benefits mostly because of resistance from the former employer.

  26. Re:Non-Competes.... completely wrong by Sique · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You both are wrong. There is a decision from the European Court declaring such non competing clauses void because they are contradicting the free choice of the workplace as laid down in the European Contracts.

    Of course you are not allowed to take trade secrets with you, and if someone can prove that you did, you are in deep trouble. There are lots of contracts with non competing clauses in Europe. But the fact that the clauses are there doesn't make them enforceable throughout the European Union.

    (There is another argument why those clauses are void: As soon as your contract ends, all clauses within the contract end too. All your former company has to enforce certain things to you are laid down in law, not in contract.)

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  27. Re:Non-Competes.... completely wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What you on about? The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that anyone in the European Union can work anyway, for anyone. No employer can put any extra restrictions on this. Sure, they do, but nobody takes it seriously - if it ended up at tribunal (which none do) it's generally believed the employee would win for obvious reasons.

  28. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. Re:Non-Competes.... completely wrong by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Contracts say all sorts of bullshit.

    I've got into the habit of 'correcting' any contracts I get before signing. Typically the employer countersigns without even reading my corrections. Their loss.

    My last one tried to stop me working:
    1. For any suppliers (so mcdonalds is out!)
    2. For any clients
    3. For any company in related (ie. computing) work
    4. For any company *at all* for 6 months after leaving the company.

    It also said *any* innovation, work related or not, was property of the company even if I came up with it in at the weekend.

    Even though it's highly likely it was unenforcable (restraint of trade and all that... despite what some posters have implied these kind of contracts get voided all the time) I crossed out the offending paragraphs before sending it back. Never heard a whimper out of them.

    (Their latest trick was to get us to sign a contract giving the unlimited power of attourney. I crossed *that* out about 5 seconds after getting the agreement.)

  30. restraint of trade by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In Canada, "you'll never work in this town again" is a threat like assault. Just making it in the midst of any labor negotiation can demonstrate "bad faith" by the threatener in the negotiation, and default judgement by a court in favor of the threatened. At least in Ontario, where people work :).

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  31. Re:Negotiate... by rleibman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sorry troll, this is not Libertarian, since it violates the non-initiation of force principle (the root of Libertarianism).

  32. Re:Non-Competes.... completely wrong by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I once worked for a video game developer, some twenty years ago. Some months after I was hired I was told that I had to "sign a few standard forms" that were overlooked during the initial hiring process. It turned out that what they wanted me to sign was a rather Draconian non-compete with a five-year period in which I couldn't work in the video game industry, and that anything I might develop during that period regardless of its relevance to the game industry belonged to them. I point-blank refused to sign it. I was told that all the other programmers had so I had to as well. I said "So what?" I was told that they couldn't hire engineers who don't sign it. In something of a state of disbelief, I replied that I had been hired, and that no such condition was ever mentioned until now. Furthermore, if it was a condition of my continued employment I would pack my things right then and there. The issue was dropped a few days later. Probably they could have used your advice on appropriate scoping.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  33. Non-competes after hiring by westendgirl · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I worked for a small biomedical engineering firm for a couple of months. (The company was full of illegal/borderline practices and made medical products, so I felt I could not stay.) After I quit, the president asked me to sign an NDA and non-compete. I told him to include it when he couriered my last cheque. When the cheque arrived, I told the courier to go, even though he insisted he was supposed to wait. I never sign anything without due diligence. I then ran to the bank and cashed the cheque. When the president and his assistant started calling/emailing, I said I was reviewing the contract. This bought me enough time for the cheque to clear. I had no incentive to sign the NDA/non-compete and the contracts were *backward looking*. How was I to know if I'd already violated a contract that did not previously exist?

    I never signed the contracts. The president flipped. He threatened to contact the university where I was finishing my Executive MBA and have me expelled.

    After I quit, a young engineer also quit and he pulled the same stunt with her. In her case, he threatened to have her blocked from ever doing a masters, since he "knew people" at the local universities. I told her he was full of hot air and that he could not force her to sign backward- (or forward-!) looking contracts. She stuck to her guns, although it took over a month for her to get her last paycheque.

    The funny thing was that non-competes are rarely enforceable in Canada and the guy had no competitors in Canada. It's extremely unlikely that the engineer or I would ever work for one of his competitors, anyway!

    --

    -- SYS 64738 --

  34. Default non-compete in Europe by snowtigger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One good thing of European law is that there are a lot more "default cases" than there are in American law.

    There is, for example a default non-compete rule for employees of barber shops. A former employer is not allowed to work within 100 meters (300 feet) from the old barber shop.

    As previous posts have suggested, any non-compete in Europe should be limited in scope, region and time. The ones I've signed had a one-year limit in a small market segment.

    It is actually quite common for people to get a paid 6-month vacation when moving between to competing companies. Then the latest trade secrets is 6 months old.