5 ms·

Most times when I see a non-compete, I tell them I won't sign it and the company will just remove it. Only recently in Chicago did I have to walk away from two

Most times when I see a non-compete, I tell them I won't sign it and the company will just remove it. Only recently in Chicago did I have to walk away from two jobs because they wouldn't change their employment contracts: https://battlepenguin.com/tech/why-i-dont-sign-non-competes/ https://battlepenguin.com/tech/why-i-dont-sign-non-competes/ If a company isn't willing to negotiate their work agreement (and I understand this is difficult with a legal department; they prefer to have unified contracts for all employees based on their start year), then there is no "meeting of the minds" when it comes to signing that agreement. It's not a work contract at that point, it's an EULA. I personally know people who were told by potential employers they couldn't be considered because of non-competes. They are unethical and they should be banned national wide in the US and not just in certain states like California.

amiga_500 6y ago
All part of your wider culture which considers corporations more important than real people.
Ericson2314 6y ago
If we want to harmonize the contracts to save the legal department trouble, we should have more collective bargaining!
mjmahone17 6y ago
Non competes have their place. But it should cost the employers to enforce it. The most obvious way is to require paying the employee their previous average total compensation, while still allowing the employee to work outside the non-compete. There should also be some form of “as time goes on you need to pay more to prevent them from taking a competing job”. If you don’t want to pay someone to not work for a competitor, then your non-compete should not be valid.
- ng12 6y ago
  They do this in finanance, New York has relatively enforceable non-competes. Typically they'll pay you your full salary for the period of time you're not working.
  - jfim 6y ago
    Isn't finance mostly bonus-skewed? Eg. one might have $150k salary but 3x bonus target.
    - ng12 6y ago
      Yes, usually the employer you leave will pay your salary and the firm you're joining will compensate for the bonus you're forfeiting.
- ElFitz 6y ago
  Pretty much what we have in France. Over here it doesn't have to be the full salary; only enough to be deemed "reasonable" by a judge, and judges working in courts related to employer-employee litigations tend to be more employee friendly. If it isn't paid, the non-compete isn't enforceable. It also requires a few more limits to be enforceable: - "reasonably" limited in time - geographically limited - a specific activity / role So they usually aren't ever enforced, because most of the time employers don't find them worth it.
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    This should be the happy middle ground. It covers high-priced sales executives, C-levels, and very senior engineers just fine. Those are the positions that might reasonably take sensitive financials or trade secrets with them. Joe Blow Web-developer? There shouldn't be a need. And if there is, pay him for the duration.
- leoc 6y ago
  It's often referred to as 'garden leave': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave .
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  require paying the employee their previous average total compensation, while still allowing the employee to work outside the non-compete This is similar to the British concept called “gardening leave”.
esoterica 6y ago
Nothing about the definition of the word “contract” suggests they have to be negotiable. Noncompetes are not inherently unethical and should absolutely not be outlawed. If a company wants to pay you $500k to not work and you are willing to be paid $500k to not work you should have the right to come to a mutual agreement with them on the matter. It’s a free country, if you don’t like the noncompete, find some other place to work. No one is forcing you to sign it.
- wpietri 6y ago
  The fundamental notion of contracts is, as they said, a meeting of the minds. "You do what I tell you or else" is pretty far from that. Whether or not they're "inherently" unethical is a matter for philosophers. But in practice, they're clearly used heavily as an anticompetitive measure and to exploit labor. Those are definitely unethical, and contrary to free markets. Your last line is willfully blind to labor history. Quite a lot of employers have done their best to make sure other options are limited. Employers definitionally have a huge power advantage, and there's nothing wrong with leveling the playing field to prevent exploitation.
  - esoterica 6y ago
    > "You do what I tell you or else" is pretty far from that. The "or else" here is you walk away and seek out an agreement with someone else. You're not forced to sign a contract just because it's not negotiable. > Those are definitely unethical, and contrary to free markets. I don't think it's unethical or exploitative to pay someone $500k to sit on a beach and relax for a year. Many non-competes are also industry specific, so you can even double dip and get a job while collecting your gardening leave payout as long as it's not within the same subfield you used to work in. You can argue that certain low-wage, low-skill employees need a paycheck every two weeks or starve, and these people have zero leverage or ability to walk away from a punitive contract, but highly paid tech workers don't fall into this category. There are plenty of options out there for you if you don't want to sign a noncompete. Some people like the idea of getting paid a bunch of money to not work, just because you don't like noncompetes doesn't mean you are entitled to force your personal preferences on other people against their will by outlawing such agreements. Sometimes non-competes are so lucrative that employees sue their own employers to force them to uphold them even when the employers don't want to. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/employer-s-waiver-non-compete-period-order-to-avoid-1-million-payment-held https://www.natlawreview.com/article/employer-s-waiver-non-c... Does that sound like exploitation to you?

amiga_500 6y ago

All part of your wider culture which considers corporations more important than real people.

Ericson2314 6y ago

If we want to harmonize the contracts to save the legal department trouble, we should have more collective bargaining!

mjmahone17 6y ago

Non competes have their place. But it should cost the employers to enforce it. The most obvious way is to require paying the employee their previous average total compensation, while still allowing the employee to work outside the non-compete. There should also be some form of “as time goes on you need to pay more to prevent them from taking a competing job”. If you don’t want to pay someone to not work for a competitor, then your non-compete should not be valid.

ng12 6y ago
They do this in finanance, New York has relatively enforceable non-competes. Typically they'll pay you your full salary for the period of time you're not working.
- jfim 6y ago
  Isn't finance mostly bonus-skewed? Eg. one might have $150k salary but 3x bonus target.
  - ng12 6y ago
    Yes, usually the employer you leave will pay your salary and the firm you're joining will compensate for the bonus you're forfeiting.
ElFitz 6y ago
Pretty much what we have in France. Over here it doesn't have to be the full salary; only enough to be deemed "reasonable" by a judge, and judges working in courts related to employer-employee litigations tend to be more employee friendly. If it isn't paid, the non-compete isn't enforceable. It also requires a few more limits to be enforceable: - "reasonably" limited in time - geographically limited - a specific activity / role So they usually aren't ever enforced, because most of the time employers don't find them worth it.
- alistairSH 6y ago
  This should be the happy middle ground. It covers high-priced sales executives, C-levels, and very senior engineers just fine. Those are the positions that might reasonably take sensitive financials or trade secrets with them. Joe Blow Web-developer? There shouldn't be a need. And if there is, pay him for the duration.
leoc 6y ago
It's often referred to as 'garden leave': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave .
goatinaboat 6y ago
require paying the employee their previous average total compensation, while still allowing the employee to work outside the non-compete This is similar to the British concept called “gardening leave”.

esoterica 6y ago

Nothing about the definition of the word “contract” suggests they have to be negotiable. Noncompetes are not inherently unethical and should absolutely not be outlawed. If a company wants to pay you $500k to not work and you are willing to be paid $500k to not work you should have the right to come to a mutual agreement with them on the matter. It’s a free country, if you don’t like the noncompete, find some other place to work. No one is forcing you to sign it.

wpietri 6y ago
The fundamental notion of contracts is, as they said, a meeting of the minds. "You do what I tell you or else" is pretty far from that. Whether or not they're "inherently" unethical is a matter for philosophers. But in practice, they're clearly used heavily as an anticompetitive measure and to exploit labor. Those are definitely unethical, and contrary to free markets. Your last line is willfully blind to labor history. Quite a lot of employers have done their best to make sure other options are limited. Employers definitionally have a huge power advantage, and there's nothing wrong with leveling the playing field to prevent exploitation.
- esoterica 6y ago
  > "You do what I tell you or else" is pretty far from that. The "or else" here is you walk away and seek out an agreement with someone else. You're not forced to sign a contract just because it's not negotiable. > Those are definitely unethical, and contrary to free markets. I don't think it's unethical or exploitative to pay someone $500k to sit on a beach and relax for a year. Many non-competes are also industry specific, so you can even double dip and get a job while collecting your gardening leave payout as long as it's not within the same subfield you used to work in. You can argue that certain low-wage, low-skill employees need a paycheck every two weeks or starve, and these people have zero leverage or ability to walk away from a punitive contract, but highly paid tech workers don't fall into this category. There are plenty of options out there for you if you don't want to sign a noncompete. Some people like the idea of getting paid a bunch of money to not work, just because you don't like noncompetes doesn't mean you are entitled to force your personal preferences on other people against their will by outlawing such agreements. Sometimes non-competes are so lucrative that employees sue their own employers to force them to uphold them even when the employers don't want to. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/employer-s-waiver-non-compete-period-order-to-avoid-1-million-payment-held https://www.natlawreview.com/article/employer-s-waiver-non-c... Does that sound like exploitation to you?