3 ms·
I think they downvoted you because that is totally different context than what discussion is about. We are not talking about CEO level agreements but simple wor
by ozim 7y ago
I think they downvoted you because that is totally different context than what discussion is about. We are not talking about CEO level agreements but simple workers.
- trjordan 7y agoI sold a two person company to a fifty person company, which triggered this situation. After the acquisition, I was a "normal worker" by most definitions.
- staticautomatic 7y agoI'm not arguing against the point. I'm simply clarifying-- for everyone's benefit-- that the assertion that "non-competes are unenforceable in CA" is not universally true.
- maccard 7y agoYou can be a simple worker and fall afoul of the above - if you have any options or stock you would be considered a part owner and then subject to a possible non compete, even as engineer #n
- staticautomatic 7y agoHow does this work in practice? When you accept employment, you sign a non-compete which commences at the close of a future acquisition? I don't doubt that it's possible but I'm skeptical of the idea that a company can make a unilateral decision that's legally binding on you as an individual simply by virtue of the fact that you're a stock-holder. Has anyone here signed such an agreement? I'd be genuinely interested in reading the non-compete language.
- maccard 7y agoNo, when you're acquired as part of being acquired you sign a non-compete agreement. You're probably renegotiating salary/perks at that point so you'll likely be signing a new contract anyway.