3 ms·

I get this perspective in principle, but you have to be careful - I've seen cases where the wording of what construes a competing company / product / service in

I get this perspective in principle, but you have to be careful - I've seen cases where the wording of what construes a competing company / product / service in a non-compete is so broad that it could block me from doing any work in my profession at all. And I've also seen companies where contracts with questionable language were agreed and signed in good faith, but were later weaponised when things turned sour. These days I'll always ask for the contracts as soon as I receive an offer, read the clauses carefully and push back ASAP where needed with my own redlined version. Most times it works out fine, and once I received a bad reaction that led me to walk away. (A bullet dodged, IMHO.)

chadash 9y ago
This perspective makes a lot of sense to me. My point is that some people are militantly against them and sometimes it's just not a big deal. A lot of companies have very narrow niches that you are unlikely to compete with anyway. If you work for a startup that makes AI powered baby monitors, it's unlikely that your non-compete is going to prevent you from working anywhere outside of the baby product industry (and you'll probably be fine in most areas within that overall industry as well). Of course, there are people who are going to try to enforce crazy non-compete clauses. Many times, these clauses aren't enforceable if they are too broad. I'm not a lawyer, but when I spoke to one about this, he said that courts will generally not enforce non-competes unless it's pretty clear that the company you move to is an actual competitor (again, IANAL, so don't take this at face value). Still, it's a huge hassle and a big expense to hire a lawyer to defend you, even for a frivolous lawsuit. But this isn't only for non-competes. Companies can also sue for non-disclosure agreement breaches and the like which are nearly universal in employment contracts. Might be hard for them to win those lawsuits, but I'm sure it's a pain to fight them. When I'm considering a new company, if I google them and see a history of litigation against past employees, I take that into strong consideration in my decision.

chadash 9y ago

This perspective makes a lot of sense to me. My point is that some people are militantly against them and sometimes it's just not a big deal. A lot of companies have very narrow niches that you are unlikely to compete with anyway. If you work for a startup that makes AI powered baby monitors, it's unlikely that your non-compete is going to prevent you from working anywhere outside of the baby product industry (and you'll probably be fine in most areas within that overall industry as well). Of course, there are people who are going to try to enforce crazy non-compete clauses. Many times, these clauses aren't enforceable if they are too broad. I'm not a lawyer, but when I spoke to one about this, he said that courts will generally not enforce non-competes unless it's pretty clear that the company you move to is an actual competitor (again, IANAL, so don't take this at face value). Still, it's a huge hassle and a big expense to hire a lawyer to defend you, even for a frivolous lawsuit. But this isn't only for non-competes. Companies can also sue for non-disclosure agreement breaches and the like which are nearly universal in employment contracts. Might be hard for them to win those lawsuits, but I'm sure it's a pain to fight them. When I'm considering a new company, if I google them and see a history of litigation against past employees, I take that into strong consideration in my decision.