Slashdot Mirror
Bill Guarantees 50% Salary For Workers Laid Off With Non-Compete (computerworld.com)
Reader dcblogs shares a Computer World report: Non-compete agreements are controversial for many reasons, but what may be worst of all: Even if you are laid off from your job, a non-compete agreement may still apply. California has made non-compete agreements unenforceable, but Massachusetts has not. Some opponents say that's partly the result of lobbying by EMC, which has considerable clout as a major state employer, headquartered in the Boston suburb of Hopkinton. But the pending $67 billion merger of EMC with Dell, and the prospect of merger-related layoffs, is spurring a new attack on non-compete agreements. State lawmakers are considering limiting non-compete agreements to one year, banning them for low-wage workers and for people terminated without cause. The leading legislative proposal will also require an employer to pay at least 50% of the former employer's salary during the period of time the non-compete is in effect. This salary guarantee is called "garden leave" and is in Massachusetts House bill H.4323. In May, the White House released a report about non-compete agreements. It found that 18% of the workforce is now covered by a non-compete agreement, but over the course of a career, some 37% of all workers (PDF) will be subject to them.
Bill who?
Seriously, nobody ever actually checks that you signed your name. Just write 'I don't agree' somewhat legibly.
HR drones are fucking morons, use it.
Consider signing actual name on IRS and 401K documents, but even there no big deal, nobody checks.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How about non-competes require to pay out at the highest salary the worker has had with the company, with automatic COL raises baked in, over the length of the NDA, minimum two years.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Can't have unions, can't get another job, have to take pay cuts, get randomly laid off, no job security. And now they want to make it so you have to find a whole new type of job? Add a poison pill to keep HR from running amok.
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
to move where they can non-compete
That is the stupidest thing I read today. Thank you for making the internet dumber.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Unions caused these non-competes to happen. In an effort to ensure that even the shittiest employees get luxurious lifelong jobs with full pay and benefits, they forced companies to do things like this to stay afloat without unfair competition from other fat cat Union shops. So the next time you get laid off and are forced to sign a non-compete, remember that fat cat Union backed by criminal Democrats like Hillary Clinton are the reason you are suffering.
I'm interested in this because I've never heard those two things connected before. Can you substantiate it please?
The main reason so far as I know why unions exist is that worker productivity has steadily risen since the 1950s while wages have remained stagnant. It's a predictable situation when you have two parties with competing interests, only one of them has a great deal more power, can dictate terms to the other, and generally is holding all the cards. That's where the demand and support for unions comes from. The problems with unions happen when they participate in politics, generally.
In Belgium if you have one, you are pretty golden as it is the company that has to pay a serious sum and it is only for higher ups, so not if you work as a normal worker.
Because if they put it in, they will have to pay you and you can still work anywhere you desire.
When I changed jobs, that was the first they removed, because I was not going to the competition and if they would not have revoked it, they would have had to pay me.
In the majority of the cases, if it is in there, you can still work anywhere you desire, but you get the monies as well.
Do not listen to me, listen to a specialized lawyer. This is specialized stuff and the average lawyer will know nothing about it and will think YOU need to pay, where it is the company that needs to pay you for limiting you on your life choices, like where you want to work.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I agree, if they initiate the severance, then they should either release you from the NCA or pay you, benefits included, until the term is up. However, if you leave of your own doing, then the NCA applies.
Actually, if they terminate you, its a pretty good bet you could fight them in court if they tried to enforce the NCA and win. However, that's a huge expensive mess and there is a chance they would win so I'd not recommend going that route unless necessary. But what you can do is move to Cali and let them come after you in the local courts. You will win summary judgment in Cali..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
How about non-compete pays the salary in the highest offer you were able to obtain, for the duration of non-compete? Every time I changed jobs, I got at least 15% raise, sometimes more than that. I don't see why I should give up this money just so my previous employer could have me not compete against them.
Actually, if they terminate you... as long as you don't steal their clients or give away confidential information you acquired while at your former employer, you can probably simply ignore the non-compete entirely. The entire reason for non-competes is to prevent loss to the company. If you do not do anything in your new job that could cause them loss, then they will have absolutely no legitimate reason to come after you, even if you are doing exactly the same job as you were before.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I mean, he's already behind on child support, and he's selling blood plasma just to make ends meet!
That's Bill through and through - just a lot of big talk.
That's because OP is a blithering idiot who is so determined to make things the ebil libruls fault, he dreams up imaginary scenarios like unionized IT shops and goes full tilt ranting at them, Don Quixote style.
Maybe how to use the grievance process to obtain camera access when your boss pockets some of the register and writes you up for the theft in front of everyone, would be a good example.
Seriously, just ban con-compete clauses nation-wide and void any contracts that include them. They're only ever used abusively on the part of the company that insisted on them as a way to screw over employees in revenge for leaving. And they don't benefit the overall economy. Just look at California. The illegality of non-competes certainly hasn't caused the tech industry here to collapse in on itself.
Apple and Google got in a world of hurt a few years ago for screwing their employees over with an informal no-poaching arrangement. Well... non-compete clauses screw the employee an order of magnitude worse. And we should drop the hammer... equally hard if not harder... on the companies using them.
Imagine all the people...
What if the company cut your salary before firing you?
"Hey Bill, you've had your salary reduced to minimum wage, but don't worry, we're firing you!"
Non-compete for 1 year price: ~$8,000
Or even better:
"Hey bill, we'll give you severance pay of $X, but you have to sign these papers..."
Included in that pile is an agreement to take a lower base salary for your last pay check, which is then used for non-compete salary calculations.
I'm not a lawyer, but this is largely true. If they wanted to go after you (they wouldn't even if they had a case), it violates the indentured servitude amendment.
What about health and other benefit coverage during the non-compete time period?
This is not true. Employers enforce non-competes to keep competitors from sucking away their workers and driving wages up, regardless of how you conduct yourself at your new job.
Because that's what happened in states where non-competes are banned?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Many contracting companies have an NCA that prevents a contractor from going to a new firm for a job which is also offered by the original contracting company, in addition to requiring a premium fee from a contract-to-hire from the host company.
The main reason so far as I know why unions exist is that worker productivity has steadily risen since the 1950s while wages have remained stagnant.
Unions exist thanks to the rise of Communism in the early 20th Century, which happened in response to the uncontrolled Capitalism of the 1800s (see: Gilded Age). I think that the US would eventually have gone through a Russia-style revolt if not for the rise of unions to curb the worst of the excesses. The Depression and FDR came at just the right time as well -- before it was too late. Ever since the 50s, Union power has been declining, and is almost gone by now.
Non-compete "agreements" are hugely unethical in my opinion. If I work at Google and Apple wants to hire me I should have the right to switch employers without further restrictions. If companies want employees to sit on the sidelines they should either pay them enough to keep them on the payroll or pay them market value to sit on the sidelines. Putting a non-compete in front of an employee as a condition of employment should be illegal and unenforceable anywhere in the US.
By all means, let me just not sign that NCA and miss payments on my house and other obligations to stand against NCAs. How noble! Meanwhile some incompetent schmuck will get the job and the company who would have hired me will never associate with me on any level. And let's not forget, even unenforceable NCAs can be damaging to the employee. Even though I'm in a state where NCAs are considered "unenforceable" I know of at least 1 job offer I did not get because of a 3 year NCA between current employer and potential employer. See, the potential employer plays for the "NCAs are good" team, doesn't want to rock the boat on current contracts, and has no interest in generating legal liabilities because even if the agreement is "unenforceable" if they get served with papers it already costs them money.
A reasonably serious question: In an ideal world, law makers wouldn't try to make this a law unless the majority of the population wants it to be so. In this situation, if that same majority refused to sign the damned things, then wouldn't economics take care of eliminating them? I realize of course that we don't live in an ideal world as such, so the whole process is slowed by momentum, and would probably have the greatest negative effects on the folks who are among the first to reject them. Surely there is some economic principle or theory that describes this situation, which is the point of my actual question: If it exists, what is the name of the economic principle that explains why people can't reliably effect policy change by way of boycott?
My response is tough shit for them.
Any business model that relies on court enforcement of restrictive labor contracts is weak. If you can't provide an incentive good enough to keep your employees at your firm and need to coerce them, you're doing it wrong.
Non-compete agreements were historically an executive clause, designed to protect a company against having a key man quit and then immediately apply a headful of inside knowledge against the former employer. When such a worker separated with a non-compete in effect, he was usually walking off with a tidy stack of equity shares whose value would be diminished if he were to violate the agreement.
So when a company requires a non-compete from a worker who does not in any way benefit from the clause, let's require compensation in the form of a percentage of former salary.
Perhaps you failed to notice the criteria I had specified, "if they terminate you"... and in general, it would also have to be for reasons entirely unconnected with your performance at work (ie, "dismissed without just cause").
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I can see them being actively enforced for people working directly on technologies with a specific competitive value, but it seems like they're used so often for people whose main risk from leaving for the competition isn't threatening privileged information but the hassle to management of losing an employee and having to hire another one, often at a higher wage.
Does anyone really spend any money on these rank and file "blanket NDA" employees?
It should 75-100% salary for the duration of the time for those laid off or fired without cause, but, it should also be 50% for those fired with cause. After all, it is still in effect.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Non-competes should not be enforceable for layoffs and termination for convenience. If they are enforced at all they should only be fore voluntary termination or for gross misconduct.
A non-compete that essentially means you cannot find work is void.
For example, it would be acceptable to say that you cannot work in the same area your current employer is in, provided it isn't too broad and it depends on what kind of job you have. If you work at an investment bank as a database engineer, the non-compete clause "must not work for financial services" can stand because you can find work in a different area (e.g. as a database engineer for a search engine provider). If you were a stock analyst, the non-compete would be void because who but an investment bank would possibly hire a stock analyst?
It's sensible and in the spirit of the non-compete without putting the Damocletian sword of "you won't work in this town, or anywhere, again if you dare to leave us" over your head.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sorry, my current employment contract don't permit me to reveal who my employer is to anyone.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
If you think we have a free market in employment you're either not paying attention or you're a shill.
That is the way it should be. If your employee is valuable enough that this person would cripple your business when they are at a competitor, they should be taken care of. If you want to assure that I don't bring my experience to your competitor even if I don't want to work for you anymore, then you should pay me for that. If you don't want me to work at all in the business for whatever reason, then pay me for the rest of my life including pay raises and promotions I would've reasonably qualified for.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
In the meantime, young kids that don't remember the cold war or any of the (true) stories about Soviet style living are starting to embrace communism.
Bad economic times don't just give rise to Trumps, they also give rise to Bernies.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Interesting idea. What's the definition of "only work" you can find, though? As long as McDonald's is hiring, are they off the hook? It seems reasonable if the agreement is something like, "Get a job and we'll make up the difference between your new salary and your salary with us," so you don't feel the costs of moving into a field that makes your valuable expertise worthless. But if they're able to say to a judge, "Well, there's a guy willing to pay $5 for a handjob behind that dumpster, so clearly the plaintiff is not trying hard enough to get a job outside the bounds of the noncompete," then the promise isn't worth much.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Actually, if they terminate you... as long as you don't steal their clients or give away confidential information you acquired while at your former employer, you can probably simply ignore the non-compete entirely. The entire reason for non-competes is to prevent loss to the company. If you do not do anything in your new job that could cause them loss, then they will have absolutely no legitimate reason to come after you, even if you are doing exactly the same job as you were before.
I think you'd have a great case even if you did start courting their clients as long as they terminated you for their convince (i.e. not for cause). If the contract has a Non-Disclosure clause you will have to abide by that forever (no taking "contact lists" and such), but if you got a layoff the non-compete part should be easily dealt with in court if your previous employer comes after you.
However, having been sued over a non-compete contract, I can tell you it's a bloody expensive difficult mess even when you win. It takes time to deal with all the lawyer visits, depositions, correspondence and court visits. It takes big bucks to pay the lawyer, the transcriptionists, the court fees, making copies and putting gas in the car to get to the appointments. You won't get your time or money back when you win. I don't recommend doing this if you don't have too, it's really not any fun. My case got settled just before trial when my former employer realized they where likely going to loose (Like they had on two side battles about Unemployment payments and overtime payments) and by that time I was ready to let it go and wash my hands of those idiots.
Like my lawyer said at one point, "Only the lawyers win in stuff like this." He was right.. The only real "way to win is not to play"...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I'll give you $10 to sit on your arse and not work for the next month.
I'm not employing you, there's no wage, it's a simple contract. Take it or leave it.
Same as a non-compete, except that my offer is probably well under market value.
This has been taking place in tech companies for years. I know of one large company, that shall remain nameless, doing this as far back as the dot-com era. Rather than try to fight to enforce the non-competes, valuable employees who chose to leave were offered a fairly sizable pay (depending on their skill and negotiating skills, sometimes way more than 100% of their previous salary) to not work for the competition. Every so many months a groups of people would meet and decide whether it is still worth paying the individual, or release them from their non-compete. Some people have gotten as much as 200% salary for a couple of years just so they don't work for the competition.
They're good in theory. They protect trade secrets.
You can also protect a trade secret by paying the person to keep that secret. Why should an employee be obligated to keep a secret for a company when they are no longer in the employ of that company? And if the secret was so valuable to the company it should be worth it to pay the person to keep their mouth shut about it. If it isn't that valuable then why are they worried about it? If there is a very specific piece of information the company is worried about leaking (say a chemical formula for a new drug) then a very narrow NDA about that specific piece of information for a limited time is reasonable. And again there should be compensation to the individual for keeping that secret for the duration of the period in which the secret is to be kept.
You can't join a company, copy all their plans, quit, then start your own clone of their business without the expense of the research needed to create those plans.
In graduate school I took a class in entrepreneurship. One of the things I learned from the professor and that I've confirmed by starting several companies since then is that if you think you are the only person with an idea or that nobody else can figure it out you are delusional. Just because you copy someone's playbook doesn't mean you'll be able to execute it any better than them. To use a simple example, I could give you the secret formula to Coca-Cola today along with as much internal "secret" info as you want and you could go out and try to compete with them. But you would fail because the things that make Coca-Cola successful as a company have nothing to do with trade secrets and everything to do with planning, organizational structure, execution and capital. They're just going to be better at their business plan than you could ever hope to be.
More free than 'you have to work at X afterwords or not work at Y afterwords' ...
Perhaps you are right. Maybe I don't understand the magnitude of interference.
I interviewed at a consulting company that made you sign a couple of WEIRD docs BEFORE the interview. One was that you would UNCONDITIONALLY accept their offer if the position was offered of Whatever the salary was at the time--It was in the Mid-50s, which wasn't bad...but the kicker was, if you quit, were laid off, or fired, you could not work for any of their "customers or competitors" for a period of 2 years. And they had a "list" of "customers and competitors" that was about as thick as the Chicago phone book.
It was PROBABLY totally unenforceable against anyone with lawyers to fight it, but I walked out, anyway.
I WILL GRANT them this---it was spelled out in VERY PLAIN English in a summary paragraph, along with the accompanying 20 pages of legalese.
The first one--by granting us the right to continue this interview, you agree to be contractually obligated to accept our salary offer of (whatever it was) and begin your employment within two weeks of our offer.
and the non-compete was pretty much the same.
2 years--don't work for any of the companies in *This* book in any capacity.
I elected to leave the interview.
Sounded too much like I was signing up to be an indentured servant..