5 ms·

Non-competes are heavily restricted in the UK under the basic principles of free competition, anti-slavery and anti-trust. No noncompete clause can go further

Non-competes are heavily restricted in the UK under the basic principles of free competition, anti-slavery and anti-trust. No noncompete clause can go further than is reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, otherwise it is unenforceable. The burden of proof is on the employer. No individual can be prevented from plying their trade by contract with another. I'm amazed in the land of the free that any of these things could stand up in a court. It's like reintroducing indenture.

Sharlin 8y ago
With apologies to Casablanca, I'm shocked—shocked!—to find the US legal culture to favor the freedom of corporations over the freedom of people.
- mdpopescu 8y ago
  Which part of "this corporation is favored over all other corporations" leads you to the "favor[s] the freedom of corporations" idea?
  - Sharlin 8y ago
    Uh, which individual corporation is favored here? It's not like only some corporations are allowed to have non-compete clauses.
    - mdpopescu 8y ago
      The one that has the non-compete signed with the employee is favored over all others that would like to hire that employee.
      - Sharlin 8y ago
        And other companies are free to sign non-competes with other people. There's no single "one" company separate from the rest except perhaps from the point of view of a single employee. As has been said by others, non-competes are primarily a weapon in corporate warfare, where the actual natural persons are just pawns.
mprev 8y ago
In practice, I’ve seen a UK based friend end up in limbo while his former employer tried to take out an injunction against his new employer to prevent them hiring him. It ended with a weird hostage swap. The new company agreed to let one of their team go work for the company that was trying to enforce the non-compete. They also insisted my friend wasn’t allowed to work on customer facing projects for six months. In effect, it came down to who had the most money for lawyers rather than anything else. In practice, non-competes can cause enough hassle and financial pain in the UK that, unfortunately, individuals can be prevented from plying their trade. That burden of proof isn’t as clear cut, either.
IshKebab 8y ago
Maybe. Pretty much every company I've worked for has had a vaguely worded non-compete clause in their contracts. Usually you can't work for another company that does the same thing (i.e. a direct competitor) for a year. None of them ever enforced them to my knowledge. Even ex-Dyson employees going to Shark. But the fact that they are allowed at all (and they are) is often enough to generate fear and doubt. Some people leaving Dyson refused to name their new employees just to be safe. They should be banned entirely.

Sharlin 8y ago

With apologies to Casablanca, I'm shocked—shocked!—to find the US legal culture to favor the freedom of corporations over the freedom of people.

mdpopescu 8y ago
Which part of "this corporation is favored over all other corporations" leads you to the "favor[s] the freedom of corporations" idea?
- Sharlin 8y ago
  Uh, which individual corporation is favored here? It's not like only some corporations are allowed to have non-compete clauses.
  - mdpopescu 8y ago
    The one that has the non-compete signed with the employee is favored over all others that would like to hire that employee.
    - Sharlin 8y ago
      And other companies are free to sign non-competes with other people. There's no single "one" company separate from the rest except perhaps from the point of view of a single employee. As has been said by others, non-competes are primarily a weapon in corporate warfare, where the actual natural persons are just pawns.

mprev 8y ago

In practice, I’ve seen a UK based friend end up in limbo while his former employer tried to take out an injunction against his new employer to prevent them hiring him. It ended with a weird hostage swap. The new company agreed to let one of their team go work for the company that was trying to enforce the non-compete. They also insisted my friend wasn’t allowed to work on customer facing projects for six months. In effect, it came down to who had the most money for lawyers rather than anything else. In practice, non-competes can cause enough hassle and financial pain in the UK that, unfortunately, individuals can be prevented from plying their trade. That burden of proof isn’t as clear cut, either.

IshKebab 8y ago

Maybe. Pretty much every company I've worked for has had a vaguely worded non-compete clause in their contracts. Usually you can't work for another company that does the same thing (i.e. a direct competitor) for a year. None of them ever enforced them to my knowledge. Even ex-Dyson employees going to Shark. But the fact that they are allowed at all (and they are) is often enough to generate fear and doubt. Some people leaving Dyson refused to name their new employees just to be safe. They should be banned entirely.