3 ms·
This is good development! I'm not sure how effective the law will be though. As others mentioned, those agreements are hard/impossible to enforce in court, par
by skarap 11y ago
This is good development!
I'm not sure how effective the law will be though. As others mentioned, those agreements are hard/impossible to enforce in court, part of the reason of which is that they are completely one-sided, vague and almost enslaving (we own whatever you create also in your own time, can't compete directly/indirectly for 10 years after leaving, can't use anything your learned while working for us...). But what stops the ex-employer accusing the ex-employee of stealing trade secrets and keep them in courts for ~3 years (and forcing to spend hundreds of thousands)? Cause, you know, it's hard to litigate with someone who has a few orders of magnitude more resources than you do.
As for non-solicit - I have a different opinion. Have seen companies breaking apart because some of the middle-managers/team leads decided to leave the company and take their team and the clients (with whom they had direct contact) with them. E.g. that's how Lycos Armenia's history ended.
- dia80 11y agoThis only possible because companies want to be able to fire their employees quickly so that means the employees can leave quickly. I know of one place (in the UK) with a one year notice term. You can't leave quickly so their business is secure but you are secure too as they have to give 12 months notice before letting you go.
- skarap 11y ago12 months for both sides? So if an employee wants to leave the employer can make them stay for one more year? Doesn't sound like a good thing to me.
- mcv 11y ago12 months is extreme. But it's extreme for both sides.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoIf the company goes under, good luck getting a year of pay from them. It is better than many deals, but still seems to favor the employer for the reason most laws do, which is that when a deal is between a person and a company, the law never treats them the same and the company gets what I always see to be the favorable treatment (for example, company can't go to jail).
- skarap 11y agoIt's not always true, at least not everywhere. E.g. in my country (Armenia) the employee can leave whenever they like with just a two week's notice (except in situations when they have some central/important role in the organization - in that cases it's 1 month). The employer on the other hand has almost no way to fire someone if he doesn't have very good reasons for that (e.g. lost trust in employee). Mass layoffs are allowed if there is some global change (technology, economy, ..). In that cases the notice period in 3 months. I guess we inherited this from the USSR (where corporate interest was not a thing) and just didn't have time to change yet.
- njharman 11y agoHow is this enforceable? Do they get constables to round you up and handcuff you to desk? What if they just sit there all day doing nothing, they can't be fired for 1 yr? I can't imagine anything forcing someone to work. I can see something like loose retirement, stock options, whatever if not giving 1 yr notice.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y agoIn the UK they would sue you for breach of contract - In reality a compromise agreement would be reached.