3 ms·

I don't get why people sign contracts that have broad non-competes in the language. I always have and always will scrub those out of a contract before I even co

I don't get why people sign contracts that have broad non-competes in the language. I always have and always will scrub those out of a contract before I even contemplate signing it. No company that thinks it's okay to prevent me working is a company I want to work for. If they want me badly enough, they'll agree to a fair and balanced contract and that includes removal of any contract that seeks to infringe on my ability to fairly support my family. I have NEVER had a company balk at this when I do it. I tell them exactly why I'm removing it and why I will never agree to a contract that includes it. I've never had any company bat an eyelid at this. They've all thought my reasons were perfectly fair and valid.

jjeaff 8y ago
There are places for noncompetes. And that is only when you are dealing with very, very high compensation. If you are paying someone enough money that they could live on for the rest of their life comfortably, then you can reasonably expect them to sign a non-compete. But don't have the gall to expect someone to sign a non-compete for a market wage.
- balabaster 8y ago
  But even a non-compete for a sufficiently high compensation needs to be sufficiently limited that it only prevents infringement of company specific intellectual property. You couldn't reasonably expect me as VP of a specific type of eCommerce company to not jump ship and go be the VP of a different type of eCommerce company. For example: Would it be fair to prevent the CTO/CIO of Google jumping ship and going to be CTO/CIO of for argument's sake Facebook? Both of these companies are technology companies in the advertising space, both have hugely different approaches and business models for their revenue streams. Given the language of some of the non-compete clauses I routinely scrub out of contracts, a VP would be expected to sign away their right to be able to leave and still find a meaningful job in their field while there being little, if any, risk of damage to Google by this switch - I mean, aside from having to replace their CTO/CIO. Would it be fair for me to jump ship from say Bluejeans knowing all their trade secrets that give them their edge in their specific market and running off to Skype and taking all that knowledge and putting up a product that directly takes business from Bluejeans? Well, probably not. I would say a non-compete for companies that could be considered direct competitors is absolutely fair. Disclaimer: I picked arbitrary company names out of the air, I'm not meaning to insinuate these companies have any such language in their contracts.
  - jjeaff 8y ago
    If you pay me $100 million to sign an agreement to never work in another job in my field, I could live with that and would have no right to complain otherwise if I signed it.
    - balabaster 8y ago
      I think to be fair, if you paid me $100 million never to work again, period, I'd probably consider it. I'm pretty sure I could invest it well enough that my descendants would have to spend fairly minimal effort to never have to work again.

jjeaff 8y ago

There are places for noncompetes. And that is only when you are dealing with very, very high compensation. If you are paying someone enough money that they could live on for the rest of their life comfortably, then you can reasonably expect them to sign a non-compete. But don't have the gall to expect someone to sign a non-compete for a market wage.

balabaster 8y ago
But even a non-compete for a sufficiently high compensation needs to be sufficiently limited that it only prevents infringement of company specific intellectual property. You couldn't reasonably expect me as VP of a specific type of eCommerce company to not jump ship and go be the VP of a different type of eCommerce company. For example: Would it be fair to prevent the CTO/CIO of Google jumping ship and going to be CTO/CIO of for argument's sake Facebook? Both of these companies are technology companies in the advertising space, both have hugely different approaches and business models for their revenue streams. Given the language of some of the non-compete clauses I routinely scrub out of contracts, a VP would be expected to sign away their right to be able to leave and still find a meaningful job in their field while there being little, if any, risk of damage to Google by this switch - I mean, aside from having to replace their CTO/CIO. Would it be fair for me to jump ship from say Bluejeans knowing all their trade secrets that give them their edge in their specific market and running off to Skype and taking all that knowledge and putting up a product that directly takes business from Bluejeans? Well, probably not. I would say a non-compete for companies that could be considered direct competitors is absolutely fair. Disclaimer: I picked arbitrary company names out of the air, I'm not meaning to insinuate these companies have any such language in their contracts.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  If you pay me $100 million to sign an agreement to never work in another job in my field, I could live with that and would have no right to complain otherwise if I signed it.
  - balabaster 8y ago
    I think to be fair, if you paid me $100 million never to work again, period, I'd probably consider it. I'm pretty sure I could invest it well enough that my descendants would have to spend fairly minimal effort to never have to work again.