7 ms·

I've had non-compete agreements provided to me to sign in the past, usually as part of a packet of things to sign. In each case I just pocketed them without si

• chrisabrams 9y ago
  In a similar light, there are many places that ask you fill out your social security number among other items on paperwork. 9/10 times they will never ask you to fill in the blanks you left out...
  • ethbro 9y ago
    If you leave off your social security number, your employer is presumably going to have difficulty paying taxes / social security / etc to you. Depending on work relationship (e.g. contract), they may not be doing this anyway. But there are some things they need it for.
    • Bartweiss 9y ago
      With all the stupid and unjustified uses of SSN, it's sort of funny to see this as the one people are objecting to. Working out Social Security contributions for your paycheck is pretty much the most reasonable use for that number I can think of.
    • s73v3r_ 9y ago
      That's bullshit. There are appropriate tax forms for that information.
    • chrisabrams 9y ago
      I was speaking generally, not specifically employers. I was asked for my SSN to get a mailbox once...
• sillyquiet 9y ago
  I mean, I get that approach, but tbh I would rather hash that out with a company before I get hired rather than 4 months down the road when some HR person notices the paperwork is incomplete.
  • tomohawk 9y ago
    By that point, the paperwork is complete. The hiring completes the transaction as being satisfactory to both sides.
    • mseebach 9y ago
      Depends. There could be a reference in the main contract listing execution of the non-compete as a condition of the validity of the contract.
    • Vinnl 9y ago
      I'd still prefer to have issues resolved before I start employment somewhere, rather than having to deal with it when you're already at work and walking away is a bigger step.
    • treis 9y ago
      That's not generally how it works. Modifying a contract without being clear that you are making a counter offer isn't going to hold up in court. They are going to see the company's offer, your acceptance, and then hold you to the original company offer.
      • ethbro 9y ago
        Fwiw, I'd say at least half of the clauses I've been asked to sign were not included at contract time, but rather at post-contract "do HR paperwork" time. So I don't see how that could be construed to be 'part of the original offer'. Especially if you asked (in writing) if such a clause existed and received a negative / no response before signing the contract.
    • emodendroket 9y ago
• inetknght 9y ago
  Now if only I could do that with software-enforced EULAs. You know, the things that nobody reads but generally sign away all your rights.
  • jonathanstrange 9y ago
    In theory you can (but unfortunately nobody does). Send a letter via snail mail that clearly states that you disagree with their EULA but were unfortunately only made aware of the EULA after your purchase. Include a printed, revised EULA with your proposals for changes. Be reasonable in the changes you propose. If they reply to you that they disagree with the changes, they can prohibit you from using the software or service, but then you're also entitled to a full refund, of course. If they forget to reply, their EULA will not be enforceable.
    • inetknght 9y ago
      gasp Are... are you... this is the internet and are you... you are serious? Can I believe this? I want to believe this.
    • Terr_ 9y ago
      I don't know, this sounds a little bit like that sovereign citizen "wrong flag in the courtroom" stuff. Even if they haven't replied, the original contract is still sitting there clearly stating that a certain set of assumptions are in place if you use the software. I don't see any way to argue that a non-reply implies consent to new terms or abandonment of any terms.
      • jonathanstrange 9y ago
        A contract is only valid if both parties agree. If one of them explicitly disagrees, the contract is definitely not valid.
        • deleted 9y ago
          [deleted]
• taneq 9y ago
  I've done this with a client in the past. They badly needed my help but tried to get me to sign some ridiculous paperwork (basically a noncompete / NDA plus more simply for being on the premises). They handed me the paperwork to fill out, I smiled and nodded, end of story. They asked about it again a few weeks later and I just said I didn't get around to it. Never came up again.
• crusso 9y ago
  Kind of an interesting approach to it, I guess. I wonder how far you could take such a thing. * Could you initial every page but remove any pages you didn't like from a single contract? * Could you insert your own subtly edited version of their non-compete that you signed? I'm wondering where the legal line is between the employer's need to do due diligence and the expectation that the employee isn't doing something to trick the employer into thinking that everyone agrees to the employment arrangement.
  • lightbyte 9y ago
    Sounds like this [1] case where a man received a credit card offer in the mail, re-wrote some terms and sent it back, and the bank accepted it without reading it. He did win the initial lawsuit from the bank. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/creditcards/10231556/Man-who-created-own-credit-card-sues-bank-for-not-sticking-to-terms.html?fb https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowin...
    • meuk 9y ago
      I really respect that guy. From the linked article: "They signed the documents without looking. They said what usually their borrowers say in court: 'We have not read it',” said Mr Mikhalevich. I am always pissed off at the stuff that companies get away with, just because they often have a dedicated team of lawyers and a big budget for this stuff. Oleg Tinkov, founder of the bank, tweeted: "Our lawyers think he is going to get not 24m, but really 4 years in prison for fraud. Now it's a matter of principle for @tcsbanktwitter." Typical scare tactics, seems like they were trying to scare him into a settlement.
    • jermaustin1 9y ago
      He technically won a consolation prize (30% cash back debit card) on his counter suit after both parties withdrew their suits[1]. [1]https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/man-who-outwitted-bank-ends-700k-lawsuit-26770 https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/man-who-outwitted-bank-e...
• Carioca 9y ago
  I've had an HR person tell me I needed to sign an NDA on the day I quit because it was missing (they forgot to hand me mine the day everyone got theirs). It included minimum damages of one year's salary for ANY breach. I had a lawyer friend write a much nicer and more reasonable version and told them that was the most I would sign. The only reason I even signed anything was to preserve the connections I had made there.
  • paultopia 9y ago
    That was very generous. I'd have laughed in their face in a similar situation.
    • Sean1708 9y ago
      No point burning bridges if you don't have to, you never know when a connection could come in handy.
      • PurpleBoxDragon 9y ago
        That's why you say no in a professional way. But I would still say no. If professionally saying no to such an unreasonable request burns a bridge, then it isn't just a bridge you shouldn't miss, it is a bridge that is better burned.
      • ben509 9y ago
        They're also kind of burning bridges. "Hey, remember our company? When you left we demanded you sign something that threatened you with damages!"
      • s73v3r_ 9y ago
        Burning bridges with who? The HR Drone?
  • otterley 9y ago
    It’s pretty typical to be asked to sign an NDA or other restrictive agreements at termination time if you’re getting a severance payment or other benefits that you wouldn’t otherwise get if you were voluntarily leaving the company. What were the circumstances in which they asked you to sign?
• djsumdog 9y ago
  I've had two agreements that were separate pages, but all the recent ones were part of the actual job offer or employment contract. I feel like that's becoming more the standard/boilerplate.
  • cynicalreason 9y ago
    Is that even legal ? I think in Europe they can't be part of the employment contract but as additional papers ( i may be wrong )
• asaph 9y ago
  Lately more companies are using digital hiring packets which employees e-sign, making this strategy essentially moot. You're unlikely to sneak under the radar when each field is required.
• lmkg 9y ago
  (IANAL) Not signing the contract is one thing. Misrepresenting your position is something else. If you gave the impression that you agreed to the terms provided, then it's possible you could be held to those terms. A contract isn't defined by a signature. A contract is defined by a "meeting of the minds." The signature is commonly-accepted evidence that such a thing occurred, but it's not essential. By pocketing the contract rather than pointing it out to them, you've arguably violated the "meeting of the minds." The company was under the impression that was part of the agreement. You can dither about "due diligence" and say it was there responsibility to check, but in some cases that can be seen as an intentional misrepresentation on your part, for which there are consequences. I will concede that this is unlikely to come back to bite you in practice. But others should be aware that it is technically playing with fire. And personally, I consider it unethical.
  • bluGill 9y ago
    When you get a job offer and do not have a current job you are automatically signing everything under duress. You don't get to eat unless you sign that, therefore you signed it. Such arguments tend to hold weight in court.
    • ben509 9y ago
      I'd love to see just one case where someone flew that line past a judge.
  • ethbro 9y ago
    Unethical? It seems ethically equal to a company using their bargaining position to advantage themselves and disadvantage their prospective employees.
    • nordsieck 9y ago
      > It seems ethically equal to a company using their bargaining position to advantage themselves and disadvantage their prospective employees. You must be unfamiliar with the software development market. In which way do employers have massive market power which renders prospective employees vulnerable? If anything, it seems like developers have the upper hand (perhaps with the exclusion of game developers).
• raarts 9y ago
  Be very careful with this. I have run into trouble because of exactly this. There was a conflict in payment, I left. Their lawyer argued that even though the agreement was not signed, I had acted as if it had been (by not objecting and continuing the employment), so it was still valid. I ended up settling, so losing money.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• psychobabble 9y ago
  You can amend any contract given to you before signing and dating. Simply cross out the sections you do not approve of and initialize the amended sections. I have done this several times with both contract clients and employers and not yet been met with any opposition, but it always went a bit different each time. Every time I advised the employer or client of the contract amendment, sometimes with no detail, sometimes with reasons why. Only once did the customer sign and give me a copy of the amended contract, while in his presence at the office, no questions. All other times the employer or client never sent me a co-signed copy of the contract, but things went forward and I was paid. As others here have already suggested, I would agree that not signing the given contract and just going forward is not the right approach if you truly want to avoid the non-compete trap. Instead, amend the contract (or have a new contract drafted, as also mentioned earlier) and return it signed; it shows both your commitment to the work, and your attention to detail. The ball is then in their court. YOU now possess an amended, signed and dated copy of THEIR contract, returned to them along with an advisory of amendment.