3 ms·

Edit: hire an employment lawyer, I am not one. That said, the way I deal with non-competes and IP in contracts is I ask them to specify the scope of the clause

Edit: hire an employment lawyer, I am not one. That said, the way I deal with non-competes and IP in contracts is I ask them to specify the scope of the clause as it relates to the technology domains and businesses involved, for a precise amount of time (e.g. 6mos), and that they will have to pay an additional %30 of the total contract value to exercise it. Given the three new variables, they have typically (n~=5) come back with variations on two of them. I have not been paid out on one yet, but I have had the agreement re-scoped to apply to narrow technology domains, an inclusion of the cost of the exercise option, and dropped the non-compete period from 3 years to 6 months. Your strategy is to ensure you can afford retirement, and their boilerplate clause adds significant risk to that plan without compensation. Just say, "hey, this boilerplate section is a bit broad and it adds unncessary risk, here are some options that I would consider." If they bully you on this, you already know everything about them you need to. However, if you're screwed and you need a job, sign it, take the money, and manage that non-compete clause risk yourself.

loxias 6y ago
This is great advice. I'd say do exactly this, PLUS, accept it in the end, regardless, because non-competes are invalid in CA. (provided it's a CA job).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- motohagiography 6y ago
  Thanks! I want to refine one statement in it that could trigger friction. I'd prefer to say, "hey, this boilerplate language is a bit broad and creates some risk, I think we can mitigate/reduce it by refining the language with these options." It's important to use language that treats the contract as something separate you are both collaborating together to find solutions in to make the best quality agreement. It's not a zero sum personal haggle. I am not a fan of NVC/NLP and other types of affected behaviour, but those approaches are examples of how language is everything, and you can have a huge impact by starting with the mental exercise that the contract is an interesting problem that you are excited to collaborate to discover solutions in. The other mental exercise question to start with is, what does a high quality agreement look like? Again, if you are in a spot, just take the money, but if you have any choice or leverage at all, the returns on high quality decisions and agreements are huge.
Chico75 6y ago
> they will have to pay an additional %30 of the total contract value to exercise it. So if you want to join a competitor, they can prevent it by paying you 30% of your total compensation? Seems like it would incentivize you to join a competitor at the end of the contract for an extra bonus :)
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  The idea is that the payment is compensation for the fact that you'll have to continue searching for another job for a few more months if they block you from going to a competitor. Great if you can get it without restrictions. However, I'd expect most HR/legal minded people to want it structured similar to periodic severance payouts. That is, the 30% is paid out bi-weekly over a certain number of months, but the payments stop as soon as the person gets another job. This counteracts the perverse incentive.
  - motohagiography 6y ago
    Interesting, that scheme wasn't included, but the real value of non-competes is they reduce your leverage for comp internally within the company because your manager doesn't have to make their offers directly competitive to competitor companies because you've banned yourself from leaving for one. If it's going to cost them %30 to keep me from going to a competitor, it means they probably won't, and I can use the competitive environment to negotiate a raise or a bonus. Of course everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face, so YMMV, but negotiations are about that equilibrium of leverage.
ThePadawan 6y ago
> If they bully you on this, you already know everything about them you need to. I have a broader question that's not very specific to non-competes. I've held a handful of jobs with companies of varying size (from startup to thousands of employees). I've never encountered any company that wasn't a complete and utter bully in all steps of the hiring process (and I still had to take those jobs). Simply ignoring my topics of discussion, "take it or leave it" style. At one company, they even put a lower salary in the contract than we had previously (orally) discussed. Is that just my impression, or could you clarify what a non-bully actually looks like?
- motohagiography 6y ago
  The tell is in your parenthesis' "(and I still had to take those jobs)" as that sounds like you entered into the discussion without any other options to start with, and they treated you like a beggar. A discussion with a non-bully company looks like there is an ongoing discussion and uncertainty on both sides about whether the deal is going to close up to the very end, instead of agreeing from the outset and then having them stack new and unexpected conditions on the "agreement." I respond to "take it or leave it," with, "I'm available to discuss options." Few people want to take responsibility for killing a deal, and especially people who use blunt tools like that. However, to do that, you need to always be open to the possibility that there isn't a fair deal to be had and by walking away you're lucky to have dodged the bullet. People who expect to be rewarded for being overly agreeable get treated like dogs doing tricks for treats, and then they are surprised when they aren't treated with respect after. As though to say, "I've fetched, sat, rolled over, shaked a paw, and begged, what do you mean I can't eat from the dinner table?" I've also "lost" job offers through negotiating, even ones I needed really badly and it seemed to friends or family like I was the asshole, but I've found that people who like you for your agreeableness don't really like you, they just like what you do for them and what felt like regret at the time was just doubt and now it is pride and confidence for having believed in myself. The terms I let the deals die over would have had long term negative trajectory for me and I knew I could do better if I kept looking. Where they saw a lost opportunity, I saw applying principles when it was hardest to do so and the stakes were high. A big part of not being bullied is not incentivizing a situation where you can be bullied in the first place.

loxias 6y ago

This is great advice. I'd say do exactly this, PLUS, accept it in the end, regardless, because non-competes are invalid in CA. (provided it's a CA job).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
motohagiography 6y ago
Thanks! I want to refine one statement in it that could trigger friction. I'd prefer to say, "hey, this boilerplate language is a bit broad and creates some risk, I think we can mitigate/reduce it by refining the language with these options." It's important to use language that treats the contract as something separate you are both collaborating together to find solutions in to make the best quality agreement. It's not a zero sum personal haggle. I am not a fan of NVC/NLP and other types of affected behaviour, but those approaches are examples of how language is everything, and you can have a huge impact by starting with the mental exercise that the contract is an interesting problem that you are excited to collaborate to discover solutions in. The other mental exercise question to start with is, what does a high quality agreement look like? Again, if you are in a spot, just take the money, but if you have any choice or leverage at all, the returns on high quality decisions and agreements are huge.

Chico75 6y ago

> they will have to pay an additional %30 of the total contract value to exercise it. So if you want to join a competitor, they can prevent it by paying you 30% of your total compensation? Seems like it would incentivize you to join a competitor at the end of the contract for an extra bonus :)

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
The idea is that the payment is compensation for the fact that you'll have to continue searching for another job for a few more months if they block you from going to a competitor. Great if you can get it without restrictions. However, I'd expect most HR/legal minded people to want it structured similar to periodic severance payouts. That is, the 30% is paid out bi-weekly over a certain number of months, but the payments stop as soon as the person gets another job. This counteracts the perverse incentive.
- motohagiography 6y ago
  Interesting, that scheme wasn't included, but the real value of non-competes is they reduce your leverage for comp internally within the company because your manager doesn't have to make their offers directly competitive to competitor companies because you've banned yourself from leaving for one. If it's going to cost them %30 to keep me from going to a competitor, it means they probably won't, and I can use the competitive environment to negotiate a raise or a bonus. Of course everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face, so YMMV, but negotiations are about that equilibrium of leverage.

ThePadawan 6y ago

> If they bully you on this, you already know everything about them you need to. I have a broader question that's not very specific to non-competes. I've held a handful of jobs with companies of varying size (from startup to thousands of employees). I've never encountered any company that wasn't a complete and utter bully in all steps of the hiring process (and I still had to take those jobs). Simply ignoring my topics of discussion, "take it or leave it" style. At one company, they even put a lower salary in the contract than we had previously (orally) discussed. Is that just my impression, or could you clarify what a non-bully actually looks like?

motohagiography 6y ago
The tell is in your parenthesis' "(and I still had to take those jobs)" as that sounds like you entered into the discussion without any other options to start with, and they treated you like a beggar. A discussion with a non-bully company looks like there is an ongoing discussion and uncertainty on both sides about whether the deal is going to close up to the very end, instead of agreeing from the outset and then having them stack new and unexpected conditions on the "agreement." I respond to "take it or leave it," with, "I'm available to discuss options." Few people want to take responsibility for killing a deal, and especially people who use blunt tools like that. However, to do that, you need to always be open to the possibility that there isn't a fair deal to be had and by walking away you're lucky to have dodged the bullet. People who expect to be rewarded for being overly agreeable get treated like dogs doing tricks for treats, and then they are surprised when they aren't treated with respect after. As though to say, "I've fetched, sat, rolled over, shaked a paw, and begged, what do you mean I can't eat from the dinner table?" I've also "lost" job offers through negotiating, even ones I needed really badly and it seemed to friends or family like I was the asshole, but I've found that people who like you for your agreeableness don't really like you, they just like what you do for them and what felt like regret at the time was just doubt and now it is pride and confidence for having believed in myself. The terms I let the deals die over would have had long term negative trajectory for me and I knew I could do better if I kept looking. Where they saw a lost opportunity, I saw applying principles when it was hardest to do so and the stakes were high. A big part of not being bullied is not incentivizing a situation where you can be bullied in the first place.