Slashdot Mirror
Ex-MS GM Can't Work 'Anywhere In the World' For Salesforce
theodp writes "Be careful before you sign a Microsoft non-compete agreement, kids. GeekWire reports that King County Superior Court Judge Kimberley Prochnau has enjoined former Microsoft General Manager Matthew Miszewski from 'working in a marketing role in salesforce.com's public or commercial sector anywhere in the world.' So what did onetime Wisconsin State CIO Miszewski do to warrant the global ban? 'He was a major evangelist for Microsoft,' explained Judge Prochnau, who added that the 'thrust of the order is to preclude him from being the evangelist for Salesforce.com that he was for Microsoft.' Microsoft, which has warned Congress that restricting the flow of talent is ruinous to America, said in a statement that the company is pleased with the ruling."
His "non-compete" agreement is only valid for a year. I'm sure he put away enough moo-la at MS to take a vacation... I know how some here feel about "non-competes" and MS, but good grief, he signed the agreement, he knew what was in it, and it's only a year.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Let me start by saying that I think that non-competes are generally bullshit. I personally gave up some benefits to avoid signing one where I work, just on principle.
That said, for high-level people with insider information, it may be a special case that I could be persuaded to accept. In any event, this guy only has 8 months left on his contract. The summary leaves out that vital little detail.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Hmm, how does this work when one company is one state and the other is in another and they are suing one another? I suppose if he stayed out of Washington state he could work for Salesforce.com. By the time the ensuing court case was heard by the court his non-compete clause would be terminated (since it is up in about eight months.)
Non-competition agreements are not meant to be enforced this way. This is akin to preventing a software developer from ever making software for another company, rather than preventing one from working on Yahoo! Messenger if his previous job was working on Windows Live Messenger. The problem with the latter is that he could "steal" a Microsoft "secret" and use it in Yahoo! Messenger, whereas the problem with the latter is that it prevents the guy from ever using his general purpose skills, education, and experience ever again. I highly doubt this guy learned any Secrets Of Evangelism Known Only To Microsoft (TM) and is stealing them for Salesforce. The judge is an idiot.
I agree with this gentleman.
I had a girlfriend exactly like that, once. She was all "If I can't have you, then NOBODY CAN HAVE YOU!". It got pretty scary there, for awhile.
This is common at all major tech companies--and the summary leaves out some details, namely that Microsoft and Salesforce are in direct competition with each other in the cloud computing business, which also happens to be what Mr. Miszewski was selling for Microsoft and was hired to sell at Salesforce... the only gotcha is that the target customer base was slightly different (international government vs pure commerical), but that does not get Mr. Miszewski out of his non-compete. Also, Microsoft's position that the governments restriction of talent entering America is bad has very little to do with Microsoft's position on non-compete clauses.
Slashdot should be renamed to microsoftsucks.com.
How do they expect to stop him from getting a job somewhere the court has no jurisdiction, precisely?
Zombie-gram...
If he does, they can sue him again in that court. That is essentially what he tried here: he wanted to work for Salesforce.com in Canada or other places outside the US, and the judge disallowed it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's probably a matter of where he is going to be living and where the new company is based (or if they have a presence in the usa) If he intends to stay living in the usa, and this place has a corp office there (if he's going to stay in the usa we'll assume they do) then they do have jurisdiction in this specific case.
I don't know if it would hold if he moved out of the usa before he was hired, if they have a corp presence in the usa.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I agree with this gentleman.
I second your motion. All in favor?
I was dissuaded from accepting employment with Amazon after an attorney warned me that he'd handled several cases where Amazon came after an ex-employee who was now working for a web startup. There are few online business niches Amazon doesn't consider itself related to, and Amazon, like MS, does business all over the world, so the usual restrictions on geographic area don't apply.
All of those employees, when threatened, apparently backed down and started their careers over in packaged software design, in-house corporate business apps, or brick-and-mortar marketing. They couldn't afford to go up against Amazon, or to "sit out" of the online business for the 18 month non-compete term required by Amazon.
Too effective to be allowed by law.
Nullius in verba
Precluding someone from working in their field at all and putting food on their table is a form of violence. I realize he probably has enough money to eat, but when this kind of judgment is applied to the people making far less money the inevitable tragic response shouldn't surprise anybody. I could see him restricted from marketing for Redhat, but this is a sickening example of imperialism of the very rich. We are facing problems now that our founders never envisioned and we need to stop this once and for all. Can you imagine this kind of "agreement" preventing farmers from farming a hundred years ago? These kind of laws have really screwed up the free trade of services and created a type of serfdom. We've lived with it for years, but when the chains become too tight it is time to act. What sort of law or laws need to be passed to stop this? Can we legally ban the "you can't work anywhere else" covenants which seem to be necessary to work anywhere besides McDonalds? Why is it the arrogant software companies that think they can make slaves of their workers?
take a trip to the ISS and be the first sales manager who's LITERALLY "Out of this World!"
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
... for high-level people with insider information, it may be a special case that I could be persuaded to accept ...
Confidential information (trade secrets, etc) can never be revealed by a former employee. The presence or absence of a non-compete agreement is irrelevant to such information.
For the most part non-compete agreements are a mind game and are not enforceable. Exceptions usually involve owners who sell a company. For high level execs the legal justification usually has nothing to do with non-competes but rather that in their new role they will inevitably use confidential information of the former employer. Note "use" not "reveal", as in quietly make decisions without fully explaining their reasons.
Microsoft, which has warned Congress that restricting the flow of talent is ruinous to America, said in a statement that the company is pleased with the ruling."
Nothing inconsistent about that - all they want is the flow of talent from cheaper countries to here. After all, if cheap overseas workers can't get here, how are we supposed to train our replacements? ;)
at least in Germany such clauses (called "nachvertragliches Wettbewerbsverbot") are legal.
"What", what he said.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I think it depends on the length of the agreement and the impact on the employee. If the noncompete bars an individual from using his or her current skill set at any job in the industry - that's effectively banishing an employee from employment for the length of the agreement. That should not be allowed. Another consideration is does the noncompete remain in effect after termination? Because working under the threat of being fired and made unemployable for a year is a hellish thing to contemplate. Here is a hypothetical: "If you don't start working weekends for free, you are fired, and will have to go from making 70k a year to making minimum wage for the duration of our two year noncompete". That's just abusive.
> you hate non-competes > you'd still sign one anyway
facepalm.jpg
Why not? They are unenforceable in most states and it avoids arguing with the new employer on day 1.
(1) They ask you to sign knowing its unenforceable, you sign knowing its unenforceable, everyone smiles. Over time you get to know and trust each other but inevitably you leave for another job. You still have a good relationship, references and possibly coming back some day are an option.
(2) They ask you to sign knowing its unenforceable, you refuse. They fear you are going to be a "poor fit". You continue through the new hire procedures and when it comes time to lead you to your desk to begin working they lead you to the managers office where it is explained that you are an at-will employee and that your services are no longer necessary. They give you your final check for the days work and bid you goodbye. They then call the 2nd choice for the position, a person who you were only won out over by the slightest of margins. Given basically equivalent skills the person easier to get along with will get the position.
I realize there is a tendency to think such a scenario indicates that this would be a bad place to work but strangely this is not true. New hires are very expensive to train and get up to speed and releasing a new hire at the earliest possible point can limit the damages. If you exhibit behaviors that suggest your personality will not fit in they may exercise such an option. It may be best to be on your good behavior until everyone gets to know and trust each other and strongly held contrary positions will get a more thoughtful reception.
Personally I'd go with:
(3) They ask you to sign knowing its unenforceable, you write "unenforceable by state law" and sign and say that you know its unenforceable but you don't want to put the other person in the awkward position of not having their paperwork complete, everyone smiles. Basically I'm testing their reaction to see if I want this job.
The world is far better with one less Microsoft Employee spreading wisdom like a virus. things like it's okay to turn out a product that is obviously second (or third) rate is a phenomenon of the Microsoft Era. Smaller, less monopolizing, companies have to actually turn out product that performs as advertised or they would be out of biz. Microsoft, on the other hand, just says wait until the next version to fix that. They will pay again. Bull, Screw everyone who does, or has worked for them. Mcdonalds is hiring. Send him that way to get a taste of reality. No sympathy whatsoever.
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
They are legal, but your previous employer gets to pay your salary (for doing nothing, or at most looking for an adequate, non-competing job) for the duration that they insist on keeping you out of employment via a non-compete agreement. I think that's exactly how this should work.
I highly doubt this guy learned any Secrets Of Evangelism Known Only To Microsoft (TM) and is stealing them for Salesforce. The judge is an idiot.
You are mistaken. For example as an evangelist this guy may know who Microsoft's weakest clients are, those most receptive to a pitch from Salesforce. He may even know their specific concerns and use such insider knowledge in his pitch.
She hasn't overstepped her bounds. If he breaks a US court order that specifies him from doing something outside of the US, then he will be accountable when he returns to the US.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
after reading a little bit more (IANAL et al) the requirements are:
* payment of at least 50% of the former salary
* and not longer than 2 years
okay, seems to be very different to the case described in TFA - thanks for correcting me
Or CAD, or medical visualization, maybe hes a researcher doing GPU protein folding.
Good-bye
So you're main point of criticism is to go after Microsoft for behaving like every other business in a free market? Every business acts to protect its self interest. This means that they often take hypocritical stands and I can't think of many corporations that have not done this at some point or another. The merits of the free market can certainly be debated, though in my mind a better alternative does not exist (Churchill's dictum comes to mind: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time").
So in essence I applaud you for your choice not to support Microsoft, as that is the means by which the market dictates the rules to corporations, but with that said Microsoft is behaving no differently than Google, Facebook, Goldman Sachs et al. In my mind, sufficient evidences exists to suggest that protecting ones interests is hardcoded into our DNA and so in an effort to move the discussion forward I like to use this as my basis. I'm all for corporate responsibility and a clear and transparent system where hypocrisy doesn't abound but the system that we have is a byproduct of our nature and to think that changes can be made to impulses that have been honed over millions of years seems the height of arrogance.
You might be right -
If execs can get past the crazy lifestyle, their $10,000 in savings might last a while. Then the world can hire them and the ori. board wsted 9 months on strategy direction.
Then they can do what they want.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Or more likely just making shit up on the internet. Oh btw, I'm 195 cm and bench 250 kg so if you disagree with me you're getting your ass kicked.
Yes, that is the way it should work. Consideration for signing the non-compete should not be a condition for future or continued employment. The consideration should be that if the non-compete clause is invoked, the company must pay a salary for the duration of the non-compete or until the ex-employee has found a non-infringing job at a comparable salary with another employer. The financial incentive of this approach will make the old employer help the released employee to find a non-infringing job to cut down on the salary expense. And the released employee can't milk the system for the duration of the non-compete. This would also stop the practise of non-competes being required for all employees.
Beck/Limbaugh alert: This thinking would be viewed as "socialist" and "un-american" by the brainwashed conservative masses.
But your laws don't apply outside your country's borders. This contract is an empty paper to all non American companies.
And if you have no intention of ever returning to the US, that might be relevant. For everyone else, they don't want to be sued to bankruptcy if they ever decide to return.
"every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void."
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
I motion a vote of consent.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
Confidential information can never *legally* be revealed by a former employee. But you've got to prove it.
Incorrect. Taking up a position with a rival gives a motivation, perhaps a strong one, to reveal the information and try to get away with it. Prohibiting such employment in the first place is much easier than trying to prove that such information was revealed after the fact.
Gang, for once Fristy was right.
"Only a year"
It seem to take about seven years for a paradigm shift, so "only a year" should be easy for a smart company that wants to kill time. Better yet, havehim produce pieces of work "for games" that "just happen" to have mobilr phone implications.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
You should not be able to prohibit a person from doing what they're good at, as long as they're not doing something illegal or stealing proprietary information. The fact that you don't like this person's choice of (former) employer, or what they're doing now, is irrelevant. This ruling sets a bad precedent IMO.
Incorrect. Taking up a position with a rival gives a motivation, perhaps a strong one, to reveal the information and try to get away with it. Prohibiting such employment in the first place is much easier than trying to prove that such information was revealed after the fact.
In California and many other states (nearly all ?) the courts have considered that argument and found it to be less persuasive than the opposing argument that a person should not be hindered in their ability to take their general knowledge and skills from one employer to another, that they should not be restrained from practicing their profession. Specifically in California the courts ruled that non-compete agreements are against the public interest and unenforceable. Exceptions usually involve owners who are selling a company.
Also in California, judges are becoming so annoyed that companies are still including non-compete clauses in employment contracts that some are now voiding the entire employment contract rather than just the offending non-compete clause.
I second this motion
They seem to be sentences in English, but I am not sure they mean anything at all!
I had an offer to work at Microsoft just out of college. I was seriously considering the offer until I saw the draconian anti-employee non-compete they wanted me to sign. I told the recruiter that I didn't feel comfortable signing such an agreement since Microsoft works in so many different areas that there was no way to avoid some sort of conflict. I was assured by the recruiter that they don't usually enforce the agreement. Maybe that is generally true, but this ruling definitely proves that they will enforce it on occasion. Instead I ended up with a different company in CA where such draconian non-competes are illegal and most companies don't even attempt to get you to sign one.
I should also add that not all non-competes have to be as evil as Microsoft's. One company I had an offer for had a similar non-compete but it had a clause that if they decide to enforce it as long as it's in force and you're looking for other gainful employment they would continue to pay you your salary until the non-compete expired. I felt that this policy was more than fair since it allowed the company to decide how important enforcing the non-compete was and didn't have such negative consequences for you as an employee should they choose to enforce it. I personally feel all non-competes should include such a clause otherwise I would NEVER consider signing one.
Non-competes can be a necessary harm to inflict on employees. For those rare cases, the company should be required to pay the employee the same salary and benefits for the duration of the non-compete. Too expensive? Well that is the exact harm the employee is being subjected to so if that is too expensive then a non-compete isn't really appropriate, now it is. The employee can actually be harmed beyond this amount if his skills are deemed to have become out of date from not having done work in his field or if he has to turn down a better job than the one he had or if he develops a depression or other ailment from his forced inaction.
The noncompete was signed in Seattle, where the judge has jurisdiction. Regardless of where in the world the guy is working, he's guilty of violating Seattle law. Yes, he could stay out of the country and avoid punishment, but he has broken the law there nonetheless.
Depends on the state. I wouldn't recommend you try this in texas, for example, where they are generally found fully enforceable. You can starve for all Texas cares.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Aye or Nay. Which one means yes?
Patience is a virtue, but haste is my life.
A US court order can't control actions outside the US (in theory, of course). The judge has overstepped her authority.
Unfortunately, any law in country A which provided for harsh penalties for judges from country B who tried to make orders concerning happenings in country A would rest on the same faulty logic. The only real solution is for countries to pro-actively get a handle on their judges and stop them pulling crap like this.
FGD 135
The only real solution is for countries to pro-actively get a handle on their judges and stop them pulling crap like this.
Except that this is our (US) policy (not that I'm agreeing with it). If our lawmakers want to effectively reach in to your country and modify your behavior, we'll do so by grabbing whomever we want when they set foot on US soil.
The solution would be a tit-for-tat situation. Violate a law of Obscuristan (even while you are sitting within US borders) and risk getting thrown into their prison should you step within the reach of their legal system. There are enough countries seriously pissed at the US's hubris that you may not have to travel to Obscuristan itself to be at risk. Any third country with a treaty agreement can grab and deport you.
Have gnu, will travel.
Shouldn't that be "restricting the flow of CHEAP talent" because Microsoft brings in foreign talent and pays them a lot less native talent.
If he does, [microsoft] can sue him again in that court.
And then what? I'm not sure what a judge in King County, Washington has to say about whether or not Mr. Miszewski can work for a company based in California. This is particularly interesting since non-compete clauses are illegal in CA.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Also in California, judges are becoming so annoyed that companies are still including non-compete clauses in employment contracts that some are now voiding the entire employment contract rather than just the offending non-compete clause.
Really? Voiding the entire contract could result in exposing all of a company's trade secrets, since voided contracts really cannot be considered a reasonable step to protect the secrecy. That is one hell of a move by those courts...
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
sounds like a damn good way to stop companies chancing their arms and putting illegal clauses into their contracts.
Also in California, judges are becoming so annoyed that companies are still including non-compete clauses in employment contracts that some are now voiding the entire employment contract rather than just the offending non-compete clause.
Really? Voiding the entire contract could result in exposing all of a company's trade secrets, since voided contracts really cannot be considered a reasonable step to protect the secrecy. That is one hell of a move by those courts...
YMMV but I've usually been presented with non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) separately from employment and consulting contracts. Voiding the employment contract would not affect the separate non-discolure agreement. This is not exactly a new issue for attorneys and they seem to like keeping unrelated things separate for just this sort of reason. Also some trade secret protection may come from state statutes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Trade_Secrets_Act, and not be entirely contract based.
I also suspect the judges are carefully picking the companies/contracts they are making an example of and trying to avoid such complications.
But this only should apply if your new employer directly competes with the former.
Or perhaps if your former employer has confidential plans to compete in the near future.
In UK, and I think EU generally, non-competes are much harder to enforce. The emphasis is on the ex-employer to prove that they have a legitimate business interest at stake - merely being in competition is not enough, it would have to be e.g. you moving to a competitor and previously had access to customer lists. That interest would have to be sufficient to override the public interest in free trade.
Court will also have to decide that the restrictions are reasonable. If not, the whole thing is invalidated, they cannot reduce an unreasonable term to a reasonable one. Time and distance are obligatory textbook examples (6 months within city limits, OK, but forever globally is never going to fly), as are some form of sensitive information - particularly access to customer lists.
IANAL, my training is to spot a potential issue and give a ballpark-ish explanation why a client needs to see one, but I'll have a go at guessing this may well have been held valid here too. The position of the employee is highly significant. Any restriction for a supermarket shelf-stacker isn't going to hold, but a bigwig marketing GM for an international company going to a competitor... Well, global might still be a bit of an ask but state-wide I doubt would be much of an issue.
(In practice it's not uncommon to require lengthy notice periods that the employee can be put on gardening leave.)
Microsoft should be required to pay this man's salary at the rate he was being paid when he left FOR THE FULL LENGTH OF THE NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT! I mean, those jerks own his soul for that period and there is no way they shouldn't have to pay for that. Let a progressive state implement THAT provision into their worker laws and we might see a whole lot less of this garbage.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Yes, it can. It's exactly the same issues as being able to be persecuted for having sex with a child, even if you do so in a country where it may be legal. If your government makes a law that you can't do something in a different country, then you can't do that. You know, like spending money in Cuba.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Generally, the agreement has ended when you leave and is difficult to enforce. This case has gone way out there as 'anywhere in the world' implies that American law can be imposed on the rest of the world (something that the rest of the world is getting seriously pissed off with America trying to do). If he goes to another country and works he cannot be called to an American court to answer for it. When he returns said American court may not chose to understand that he was outside their jurisdiction... but hey, judges are all old and crazy. It does not matter where it was signed, what he does in another country is not to be considered in America except in limited situations and this is not one of those.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Watch out, because it's not just the high level people tech companies enforce non-competes on, either. My salary was that of a respectable mid-career dev. Maybe a couple tens of thousand higher than most, as over the years I'd built up some attractive deferred compensation that vested every 6 months due to generating numerous positive business outcomes for my employer, but definitely well within the average for someone of my professional level.
Posters such as the parent who say that a fair form of compensation to offer in a non-compete is to continue paying the employee's salary while looking for gainful employment have a good point about that adding a lot of contractual fairness to the agreement.
I was laid off during the first batch of layoffs at a large tech company at the beginning of the GFC. You wouldn't guess that it would be that difficult for a competent person who'd signed a non-compete with a big tech company to find alternative employment, but during the worst of the global financial crisis, IT WAS!
I identified ONE organization, a business partner of my former employer it turned out, to whom my recently used specialized senior skills would be within 20% as valuable to them as they were to my former employer. People who wanted generic C++ coders wanted a kid just out of school they could pay a lower salary to, and weren't interested in me even when I agreed to consider a lower salary often because of concerns that I'd bolt as soon as the economy improved or that having a senior person working for a relatively junior dev lead wasn't a good organizational dynamic. Once you've been in the industry 15 years, employers hope to get someone with expert-level knowledge of the technology and business environment - not just the programming language - they'll be working in. For example, game dev ads often specify, recent professional game development experience required, game development toolkit X experience preferred. They don't say, "Need ace C++ dev from well known high end financial services organization for an exciting new game project." Similarly, people in finance unless very enlightened don't want to consider a game dev as a potential addition to their staff.
I initiated conversation with the org that appeared to be a good fit through a former colleague who now worked there. The word came back, we'd LOVE to have you on staff, but because of the former employer's non-compete we have to wait a year before we have this conversation.
Meanwhile, I pursued the second-tier choices I'd identified. Over and over again, I was not quite the right fit. For some, the pre-big-tech-player experience I was seeking to apply to the job requirements (most of my experience is outside that big tech player) wasn't "recent" enough to count. For others that didn't have specific industry experience requirements, I was too senior an employee. For some in a similar vertical to the one I'd worked in at my former employer, my experience wasn't seen as a good fit because I was (for example) applying for an evangelist or support role when my most recent previous experience was as a dev, in an attempt to work around possible concerns during the non-compete term. For others, they were looking with someone with 2-3 years of experience and weren't interested in a senior candidate.
200+ resumes and countless recruiter conversations later, the year was up. I knocked on the door to the company for whom my resume was an ideal fit. I did the loops, they really did want me on staff, and we were in the final stages of negotiation. For some reason my former employer became aware of this and said to them, "You can't hire him. He's involved in legal action against us." The legal action? I'd filed an unfair labor practices COMPLAINT (not lawsuit, but COMPLAINT) with a governmental agency against them for my layoff, as colleagues and attorneys both felt was warranted. Attorneys advised me that the only way to challenge this would be to go after the potential employer on grounds that they illegally
he could live and work in ,say, sweden, where the government and bureaucracy, law and justice are generally not whores to private corporations like this judge is, and spend a lifetime in honest and secure-ass (thanks, social security) work, and die happily, and not at once set foot in sweden.
hmmmmmm. sounds like a plan.
Read radical news here
To exercise the non-compete clause, they have to pay a significant portion of the former employee's former salary for the length of the clause (1y max if I'm not mistaken). They then have to pay no matter what, even if the employee didn't really intent to work for the competition, and they can only prevent him from working for the direct competition, no vague "same area" bullshit. So the end result is that it's rarely ever used.
You are mistaken. For example as an evangelist this guy may know who Microsoft's weakest clients are, those most receptive to a pitch from Salesforce. He may even know their specific concerns and use such insider knowledge in his pitch
I am not a lawyer but I hope the Minority report concept has no root in the legal system of this country. To make a decision based on the concept someone *may* in the future decide to use privledged information in violation their contract as a pretext to constrain their opportunities is fundementally unfair and illogical in my view.
I hope the judges decision had nothing to do with hypothetical possibilities.
I signed one of these bits of non-compete bullshit sixteen years ago when I was just going to be working in a commercial metal testing lab that only had one other staff member in that division. I think it was for five years and very broad but ultimately it was just there to scare the gullible. Such crap is of course illegal in my country as it should be in the USA - didn't you ditch indentured servitude before you ditched slavery?
IMHO anything that looks like pointless revenge for something that is not criminal behaviour should not be in law. Taking the clients with you when you go is a different story and there are other things that deal with that.
As pointed out by someone else above, even within the US borders there is at least one state where it doesn't apply.
I only signed a non compete several years ago after a lawyer told me they were illegal in my country and any action over one would never make it to court. In hindsight it was one of many other bits of bullshit in that company and I should have taken it as a warning not to work in the place, such as the "you are not as good as we expected to apply for this job so we can't pay you as much as advertised", plus an empty broken promise to raise to that level soon. The only way to get a pay rise or even time off was to leave and work elsewhere. The guy before me worked for four years and was not able to take holidays - I only stuck it out out for a year and a half, found that out (plus a pile of other very dodgy practices) and then left.
Since then I've seen them as tools of weasels or HR people making sure they have something to do so they look busy enough to stay employed.
I told the recruiter that I didn't feel comfortable signing such an agreement since Microsoft works in so many different areas that there was no way to avoid some sort of conflict.
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the Microsoft agreement doesn't say what you just said. It says you can't immediately go work on *exactly the same thing* at a competitor. Plenty of people go off to work at competitors, they just work on a different kind of project for at least a year.
I had such a thing happen to me here in Missouri. The company and the lawyer who forced me to sign an NDA and employment combined contract after I had been working there two-three weeks, both knew it was unenforceable and actually illegal to threaten me to have my paycheck withheld until I signed or fired if I didn't sign. The judge wasn't happy about that and threw the whole thing out. I suspect it was to send both the lawyer and the company and others a clear message that this kind of clear disregard for the law was absolutely not going to be tolerated and companies would be severely punished for it.
Without some kind of additional compensation you can not make or get an employee to sign another contract once they are hired and have been working. If you offer the employee $10-$1,000, or 2 more vacation days a year, or whatever to sign the contract and it is their choice then it is absolutely legal. If it is enforceable depend, on the state and what is in the contract, since the employment contract would still have to be reasonable/legal according to your state laws.
You are mistaken. For example as an evangelist this guy may know who Microsoft's weakest clients are, those most receptive to a pitch from Salesforce. He may even know their specific concerns and use such insider knowledge in his pitch
I am not a lawyer but I hope the Minority report concept has no root in the legal system of this country. To make a decision based on the concept someone *may* in the future decide to use privledged information in violation their contract as a pretext to constrain their opportunities is fundementally unfair and illogical in my view. I hope the judges decision had nothing to do with hypothetical possibilities.
That's a bit of an overstatement. My understanding is that in general the people who get this sort of 12 month restriction have access to detailed and confidential business plans, things regular employees would not have access to. The nature of the new job also tends to be such that it would be very difficult to make decisions independent of the confidential information of the former employer, its more than the possibility of doing so that you suggest. I don't recall the specific companies involved but I recall something in the recent past where a judge prohibiting someone working in a particular department of the new employer for 12 months.
The noncompete was signed in Seattle, where the judge has jurisdiction. Regardless of where in the world the guy is working, he's guilty of violating Seattle law. Yes, he could stay out of the country and avoid punishment, but he has broken the law there nonetheless.
Oh, this was in SEATTLE. I get it!
Someone needs to Subpoena the Judge's investment portfolio, bank account, and family tree. Methinks there will be some interesting, er, "entanglements".
Further, I doubt seriously that this ridiculous ruling would be upheld on appeal, even in Washington state.
Overly broad non-compete agreements are not favored in the courts, generally. You simply can't contract away your ability to earn a living, no matter WHAT you sign.
I'm pretty conservative and I wouldn't have a problem with this at all. I think the main things a company should be able to protect when an employee leaves are their customer list, in very limited cases their processes for doing business, and obviously trade secrets (chemical formulas, food recipes, etc.). Other than that an employee should be able to work for anyone they want that will pay them better than their current employer. If they are valuable enough for a non-compete then the employer obviously thinks they are important and can offer to pay them more to get them to stay. If the employer doesn't think the employee is valuable, but wants a non-compete then they are being vindictive jerks and the employee should leave such a crappy company. I would even go so far as to say the employee might even want to let the customers know how the company treats their employees when they leave.
Most positions that are worth having a non-compete contract are with employees who a company is hiring specifically because of their skills, not because they are going to train them and give them skills. So the employee should be able to offer those same valuable skills to another company who is willing to pay them more. Most non-competes are not written to reasonably protect the company, most are written to be vindictive to the employee if they decide to leave. Those types of agreements are crap.
It is not interesting. If he violates it, then MIcrosoft can ask the court to punish him, place a lien on any property he might have in Washington State, and if the court decides it is bad enough, they can put a warrant out for his arrest and the states are all friendly enough that they will honor it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I suspect if this case were appealed that the judge would be over-turned because of the unreasonable scope of the ruling. I have never ever seen a court enforce a non-complete globally. That is just outrageous and it is punitive to the employee and might even be a violation of his Constitutional rights to pursue happiness through employment in his field. I seriously doubt he is irreplaceable. He might be hard to find a replacement but there is someone out there perfectly capable of doing the same exact job. Microsoft isn't going to eliminate the position just because this guy is leaving. They are clearly admitting that he is replaceable. How far down the organizational chart is this guy? He doesn't even manage a group of people does he? If he is such a threat to Microsoft that he might seriously damage their business by going to work for their competitor then clearly they see his skill set as extremely valuable and should pay him for the time they are making him sit out of the workforce in his field. The fact that he could sling burgers doesn't matter. The issue is the restriction of trade by Microsoft on the employee.
Positional salary is not enough to warrant barring him from his field of work. If a company is so threatened by a VP leaving that they give them a parachute/exit package to make sure they go to another field, then they can do the exact same thing for this guy.
I would love to see this case fought and over turned. The more cases a judge has over turned the worse the judge looks and the harder it becomes for the judge to stay on the bench. Ruling in such a harsh fashion in favor of the corporation is such crap. In my opinion she basically gave the employee a legal bitch slap. The US legal system and Constitution is all about protecting the minority and the little guy and this judge could use a good legal smack of an over-turned case to remind her of that. Microsoft may make the argument that every software company is their competitor, so none of their employees should be allowed to work for any software for 1-2 years.
That right there is complete crap, and is more of illegal monopolistic attitudes that Microsoft got smacked down for by the DOJ. Microsoft needed to have their corporate back broken in half by the DOJ as punishment, rather than the light tap on the wrist that they got. Microsoft did significant damage as well as long term damage to the computer industry and they should have had to pay dearly for it. Microsoft didn't become a monopoly by playing fair and having the best products. If you believe that you need to read some of the history of the computer industry. Microsoft isn't as bad as it was in the past, but they still show those attitudes and ideals most of the time. I would have broken the company up in to 3 groups, OS group, Application Group, and Hardware Group, with the highest rate/price they can charge other companies, being what they charge each other for products and services. If you don't put a limit like that in place they will just sell to each other ar dirt cheap rates and effectively be one company again.
No he isn't because Seattle law doesn't apply outside of Seattle, and if a law doesn't apply it's impossible to be in violation of it.
Substitute "Seattle" with "Saudi Arabian". Does that mean nobody anywhere in the world can drink beer?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You guys still really believe in all these election slogans a bunch of your politicians came up with a couple of hundred years ago?
... some rogue moderator has more or less moderated down all my posts from yesterday.
This sucks.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Substitute "Seattle" with "Saudi Arabian". Does that mean nobody anywhere in the world can drink beer?
Yes and no. There's not a damn thing they can do when you're outside their borders (well, they might be able to request extradition, but would likely just be laughed at), but if you should ever travel to Saudi Arabia, and have ever had a beer in your life, there could be complications. I don't know anything about the law you are referencing, but an inability to protect travelers from the local government is one of the reasons for a country to show up on the Department of State's Travel Warnings list.
I was going to reference how the US can get you for smoking marijuana when outside the country, but trying to google a citation appears to indicate that that is actually false. Still, it certainly seems plausible for other countries to convict people for things they did outside that countries borders.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
In that case, he'd probably have an nVidia Quadro card. The 8800gt is for gamers.
... it's a "Right to Work" State.
-- Oh wait! No, the law might have been pushed forward as a "Right to Work" -- but it's really a "Right to Fire."
Seems to me, that if you can prohibit someone from being gainfully employed in their area of expertise -- you've created a de facto "Indentured Servant" -- "Sure, you can work some more, but for minimum wage..." Just because someone was fooled into working for such a clause, doesn't mean a business can abuse it. I've always considered "job contracts" something akin to "Under duress" -- jobs mean income, a way of life -- not having the job means; mot eating.
I'm sure that this man COULD have gotten a good job anywhere -- but in the case where someone is in a mining town, or the employee is working in a vertical market where they learn all about a specific company that cannot be applied elsewhere,... well, are we sure that these clauses would not be abused?
Merril Lynch used to also add a "training fee" for employees to pay if they went to work for a competitor. The "training" was mostly cold calling for a year. After which, only about 2 of 100 "employees" would still be working.
>> I don't think company's should have these RIGHTS when they impede on someone's right to work -- but this is America where Corporations have Rights and Citizens are Nervous.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Sounds like the "agreements" I always get with companies.
They have a management policy that is "boo fucking hoo" for me, where I don't get something repaired, or I sign a EULA or I purchased a ticket. I didn't buy a product to throw away my money -- but that can easily be "their policy" because it works for them. They can spend huge sums on lawyers for their agreements -- and I've got 2 minutes to read them. If I "choose" another product, it's likely going to have the same "policies." Boo-hoo for me but I have a choice between who screws me over?
Why can't I have a "policy" in my house that charges any company that calls me $6 a minute for wasting my time?
I think you are forgetting that there is an EXTREME difference in power and bargaining between the two parties in this case. If it's among equals -- then sure, boo hoo. But any company with a good paycheck, can come up with ANY corporate policy to screw an employee they want these days.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Wrongfully overstepping its authority, only because it knows that it's immune to any consequences (gunboat diplomacy necessarily only works one way).
I think we're confusing what a country can, or is allowed to do by the traditions of diplomacy, international relations, restraint and generally not being asshats, and what it'll do just because it wants to and is physically able to achieve it.
Unfortunately, any mechanism by which a country which will not self-restrain can be restrained rests on exactly the same faulty logic as that which the externally-imposed restraint is trying to stop.
It's quite depressing really.
FGD 135