Slashdot Mirror
Crazy Non-Compete Contracts?
JL-b8 asks: "I've just encountered a (from what I know) strange occurrence. A group of friends who work for a small web design firm are being forced to sign a non-compete agreement with a clause that prohibits the employee from working with a competing company for 12 months, after the date of their leaving. The owners claim it's a standardly practiced clause, but I don't see how the hell a web developer/designer is supposed to find work in a city for a year, without moving to a completely different city. I'd like more input as to how this weighs in to the rest of the companies out there. Is this a common thing? If you've signed something like this, and had to switch jobs, how did it affect you?"
I'd like more input as to how this weighs in to the rest of the companies out there. Is this a common thing?
It's probably pretty much bullshit, as non-competes are usually targeted at specific knowledge jobs (CTO, CEO, etc), not skill jobs (web designer/developer). Basically, it comes down to compensation for that commitment. If the firm's paying six and a half figures, go for it. If they're paying market rate, tell them to knob off: There are plenty of other firms that don't require a non-compete for a regular web developer/designer position.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I've seen non-competes like this in things like news media, but not often in software development. If someone is a news anchor at station A, when they switch over to station B they generally get a 6-month to 1-year paid "vacation" so the marketing that station A did to promote this person to their viewers would not give an advantage to station B.
Non-competes should only be accepted for this sort of reason, where some person working within the same industry for another company would have either proprietary knowledge or influence not due to their skill, but only to their association with a company. If I'm working as a cashier for -insert megalomaniacal chain store here- then there isn't really any possibility of having such knowledge or influence. If instead I'm working in their procurement department and negotiating deals with (and cultivating relationships with) outside vendors, it makes sense for the company to have a non-compete clause. If I weren't working for them, I wouldn't have had the contact with those vendors, it is only due to my work with the company that I would be as successful at another company.
Whether or not you accept the clause, however, is up to you. Do the benefits of working for this company outweigh the problems that a non-compete may cause you?
Add a clause in the agreement that said the company will pay your full salary for the duration of the non-compete agreement, or until you landed another job, whichever is earlier. Tell them that is also "a standard clause for non-compete agreements".
If what you know is so important that the company will suffer if you work for a competitor, it makes sense for the company to pay you for it. That's fair.
Oliver.
In fact I can't understand how can US workers comply and go away with such a draconian practice like a "non compete" clause. What do they think you are supposed to do for a year? Washing cars?
I can understand not copying your previous employer IP property to paste it in your new workplace. But if, for example, I'm a software engineer that worked on PageRank at Google, I understand not re-implementing PageRank at my new workplace, but why should I stop working in search engine technology? Why should I restart from (almost) scratch, doing something I'm not expert in, having probably lesser opportunities and wages, etc.?
What I find more amazing is the "oh well it's pretty standard" attitude. Do you really think such clauses are fair clauses?
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize