6 ms·
When an employer sends you their boilerplate agreement and you see "Employee will not work for a competing business", you're not looking at the only employment
by etjossem 10y ago
When an employer sends you their boilerplate agreement and you see "Employee will not work for a competing business", you're not looking at the only employment agreement they've ever signed. You're looking at the version most favorable to them. Strike out the "for 2 years following employment" and replace it with something reasonable like "while employed by the Company."
It's customary to ask for a ridiculous clause like this up front, because no candidate will walk away over the mere sight of it. They get one free chance to screw you over, just like when you were talking about salary and they asked what you made at your last job. But you have to do your part; politely bounce it back.
You are a professional and this is a negotiation. No one will begrudge you putting a reasonable counteroffer on the table.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoWhy would I want to work somewhere that I notice has just taken a free chance to screw me over?
- etjossem 10y agoBecause the opportunism of the company's legal department (or laziness of them using RocketLawyer boilerplate) doesn't correlate one bit with whether you'd want to work as an engineer there. Other signals matter way more.
- nsxwolf 10y agoThat's getting to emotional. The definition of "screwing you" is you taking their first offer, no matter what it is. Both sides should be trying to get as much as they can in a negotiation.
- st3v3r 10y agoNo, this is actually screwing you. Preventing you from working for any amount of time after you've left their employ is actively trying to screw you.
- greglindahl 10y agoThis is not true at all. Getting too high of a salary may increase your chance of getting canned (performance or RIF.) And offering too low of a salary to a new employee may cause problems if the new employee finds out they're paid less than their peers.
- nsxwolf 10y agoYou're never going to convince an employer to give you "too much" money. And employers have no problem low balling you - they really don't think you're going to find out what all your peers make, which is why they discourage the practice of sharing salary information so heavily.
- greglindahl 10y agoI've seen both of these things happen in real life, and have worked at companies that had an explicit policy against low-ball salaries. Startup valuations can also be "too high" -- making it hard to raise the next round.
- st3v3r 10y agoWhy? Why shouldn't they just be banned outright?
- etjossem 10y agoI personally think California made the right call banning them outright. The rest of the country would do well to follow suit. I'm talking about short-term, individual ways to solve your own noncompete problem.
- maerF0x0 10y agoI didnt know they were banned in California. Pretty sure my contract still had one in it.
- linkregister 10y agoSure, lots of contracts still contain them. They're just completely unenforceable under California state law.
- d_t_w 10y agoBroadly speaking they're unenforceable in the EU as well, anything beyond 3 months restriction in the UK would certainly fall under restraint of trade. Employers include them in contracts to scare people, and generally it works.
- CamperBob2 10y agoThat's a bit of an oversimplification. They are enforceable under California law, but (AFAIK) only when equity is part of the employment contract. I'm not sure if stock options count; you'd need to ask an attorney. Bottom line: if a company demands that you sign a noncompete agreement, that's your cue to ask for a chunk of the company.
- linkregister 10y ago
- greglindahl 10y agoMany reputable companies won't ask for a ridiculous clause, and you might choose to work for them, instead. For example, all of the IBM employee paperwork I signed (after selling them a startup) had notices of where California law gave me additional rights compared to the rest of the country -- and of course, no non-compete. I quit 3 weeks later, no hassle at all.
- ryandrake 10y agoMan, I don't know who all you Captains Of Industry are who are able to successfully negotiate things out of standard employment agreements, but most of us do not have this option. I remember once objecting to a non-compete, and tried the "strike it out" trick, and I was given a very clear "Sign it unmodified or GTFO" warning. I don't think negotiating these things is as common as some of you believe.
- etjossem 10y agoThen you did what you could. My comment was more directed towards those who don't even raise the point at all. Whether you're successful depends on the company, your state laws surrounding noncompetes, whether you're in a good bargaining position, and how easy internally it is to change "standard" employment terms. I can't promise all those things will align, but it's helpful to remember that in many positions and companies this is a negotiable term.