4 ms·
This is the general problem when you have two parties with an asymmetry of power enter into an agreement with each other. The more powerful entity will spend t
by exelius 11y ago
This is the general problem when you have two parties with an asymmetry of power enter into an agreement with each other.
The more powerful entity will spend time iterating over the process and identify every possible way they can be threatened. They will write contractual language that errs on the side of protecting the company.
The less powerful entity will not argue any of this language for fear of no longer being allowed to engage the more powerful one. They don't know what to look out for anyway because they are inexperienced at entering in to these kinds of contracts.
This is a problem for more than just employment contracts. We expect individuals to have to negotiate against highly-paid professional negotiators for even the most essential activities in our lives.
- crispyambulance 11y agoThe good news is that most employers don't actually try to enforce non-competes unless the violation is egregious (like poaching clients). This particular case might be a cynical and calculated action to, as the article says, "send a message" to other young employees looking to move on. It could be the aggressor here has been suffering from a brain drain and this is how they've decided to deal with it.
- mikeash 11y agoI don't know that this is good news. Limited enforcement is why they can get away with such clauses in the first place. A remarkable number of people will be placated by this when they really shouldn't.
- exelius 11y agoYeah, I realize that many non-competes don't get enforced, but the fact is that those companies will continue to demand them because the non-compete protects them in a small percentage of cases (regardless of its impact on their employees). The companies have zero downside from the NC but it can significantly affect workers who may feel they have no choice but to sign it if they want a job. Hell, many of the non-competes are likely unenforceable, but so few people ever push back on them their legality is never tested.
- srussellkraft 11y agoExactly, and most employees are never going to be in a position to push back, especially in a field like journalism, where people are happy just to have a job
- srussellkraft 11y agoExactly, and most employees are never going to be in a position to push back, especially in a field like journalism, where people are happy just to have a job
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoSelective enforcement is never good news. Not in law. Not in contracts.
- crispyambulance 11y agoOK, but that is what happens in real life! The way things are right now, employees will simply use their judgement to determine whether or not it is "safe" to violate "the letter" of a non-compete clause in their contract. That usually works out just fine, until it doesn't :-( Hopefully the public shame of more stories like this will encourage more employers to think twice about draconian non-compete clauses.
- dredmorbius 11y agoAnd what makes a client an exclusive property of one vendor or another? Or reason to take out revenge on arbitrary fresh-out-of-school recruits? This practice needs to die. Immediately.
- exelius 11y agoActually, many clients will request this. The practice of winning a bid from another company and then just going and hiring the team that works on that project away from your competitor is far too common, and this helps stop it from happening.
- dredmorbius 11y agoThe first client is more than welcome to offer that team a compelling reason to stay put.
- exelius 11y agoI think it's more that if they replace a vendor, they are replacing them for a reason and don't want the same idiots to bring the same bad habits back with them.
- Natsu 11y agoMy solution for this nonsense would be to make things such that a noncompete is only enforceable as long as the employee is being paid their highest wage in the previous two years during the entire time of the non-compete and they were limited to a maximum of 2 years (both limits are required to avoid certain gamesmanship). If you make this salary only (not stock), it has the bonus of screwing over bogus $1 CEO tax-dodge salaries too. If it's actually that important that they be kept off the market, they should have to pay the salary during that time. If it's not important enough to pay them for, then it shouldn't be had.
- dalke 11y agoThat's a "garden leave" clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave