9 ms·

But my employer does everything. There is no field that my employer is not involved in, somehow. You can guess who they are, probably, or just read my profile.

But my employer does everything. There is no field that my employer is not involved in, somehow. You can guess who they are, probably, or just read my profile. And they say "You cannot do anything that competes with anything we do". Which is everything. Want to make a Sudoku app? That's a game, we do games. Want to do some open source ML library work? We do ML, you can't do ML outside of work (I asked legal that one). And that's ignoring the who-knows-how-many secret un-released projects that might relate. I'm in a US state that allows non-competes. I recently turned down a job because I wasn't comfortable with the non-compete I was compelled to sign expressly because the company's opinion of its own market was so broad. They implored me to trust that they had "never sued anyone" and "have no intentions to", and I think they honestly believe that. But then why have the non-compete at all? And even if they are true to their word, what happens when they sell the company to someone else that exploits the leverage the non-compete provides? A friend of mine was sued by their ex-employer over the violation of a non-compete. He lawyered up and fought it. And he won! But it was a Pyrrhic victory that resulted in a significant expensive of time (the judge granted an injunction that forced him out of business until the case was resolved - which was around 18 months) and money (he was granted no financial judgement). I am convinced the plaintiff's lawyer knew they'd lose, but to the suing party the process was punishment and that became their goal. His should be a cautionary tale - even if you're advised that the non-compete isn't enforceable, it can still hurt you.

wolverine876 5y ago
> They implored me to trust that they had "never sued anyone" and "have no intentions to", and I think they honestly believe that. But then why have the non-compete at all? Exactly. 'That's great; we can resolve that issue easily. Let's just skip the non-compete - you're not using it anyway and I'm not comfortable with it.' EDIT: A non-lawyer's suggestion (talk to a lawyer before you do this): Skip signing or edit documents (cross out and initial sections you don't like, add words - and initial each change) and then sign and send it back. Don't say a thing; leave it to them to bring it up - most people won't bother disputing it with you.
- ozim 5y ago
  They are not using it but just imagine that company gets acquired by people who do those kind of things. Contract with company is not contract with current management only. I don't know who will be there in 2 years in charge. My current company was acquired by a bigger company like a year ago, fast forward one year - even bigger company is now owner of our parent company.
  - b3morales 5y ago
    Not to mention that the person making the assurances -- hiring manager, or even worse, recruiter (who may not even be an employee!) -- is not likely the person who makes the decision to enforce the clause.
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  Well we have never had to sue anyone because no one has ever actually called our bluff when we send them a threatening demand/cease and desist letter from our lawyers. So if you decide to call our bluff in the future just know we won’t sue you…because we don’t have to sue, our agreement makes you waive your right to have the case heard by a court in lieu of mediation by a mediator of our choosing, from a mediation company we send all our cases to.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    > makes you waive your right to have the case heard by a court in lieu of mediation by a mediator of our choosing This really should be made explicitly illegal. It should not be possible for an individual to surrender the right to bring a dispute in front of the court.
    - blunte 5y ago
      Who contributes most to politicians - individuals, or corporations and PACs funded by non-listed corps? And actually, who writes a significant part of new bills, some of which become laws? Yes, corps. It's not surprising then that the legal system has some extra benefits for the corporations.
masklinn 5y ago
> I'm in a US state that allows non-competes and recently turned down a job because I wasn't comfortable with the non-compete expressly because the company's opinion of its own market was so broad. They implored me to trust that they had "never sued anyone" and "have no intentions to", and I think they honestly believe that. But then why have the non-compete at all? FWIW you can try editing the contract, removing the NCC clause, or tacking on steep consideration for exercising the NCC (as well as hard limit on it). If they never sued anyone and have no intention to, they don't need an NCC clause, strike it out and ask them to sigh the updated contract.
- pc86 5y ago
  They don't even need to sign it. You've only signed the edited version, so they can either use the edited version or not have a non-compete. If you're comfortable with the edited version it doesn't really matter which one they choose.
  - tacon 5y ago
    If the non-compete is just a part of the overall employment contract, that means you are working without a contract. That can be problematic if the contract establishes benefits for you, like your salary, your bonus, your vacation, etc., etc.
    - pc86 5y ago
      Good point that I definitely overlooked. I was assuming the NC was a distinct document.
- stevesimmons 5y ago
  > tacking on steep consideration for exercising the NCC (as well as hard limit on it) Now I'm mid-career, employers want to hire me for my experience. If presented with a non-complete clause, I first strike it out, saying it isn't fair that you stop me working in my core area of expertise, when you're hiring me for exactly that reason. If that gets refused, I instead add a clause that says any period where the non-compete is enforced will be paid at my full salary. In practice, there ends up being a short discussion with HR, some thinking behind the scenes, and that clause is allowed. And when I eventually leave, the non-compete period ends up being waived.
baron816 5y ago
You did the right thing. It’s totally possible that they come back to you and say “alright, we’ll drop the non-compete.” Especially if the feds appear to be heading towards voiding them all anyway.
zippergz 5y ago
Also the people claiming (and believing) that they have no intention of suing are not the people who make the decision to sue or not (unless it's an extremely small company, or you are an important enough hire to be discussing this with the CEO and General Counsel). Even if they have the best intentions, some random recruiter or manager really has no insight into this.
- filmgirlcw 5y ago
  Absolutely -- very early in my career, a startup I worked at had non-compete language in my original employment contract (naming very specific places I couldn't be poached to take a job at) and even though the company was very small and the person who made me the job offer was the COO (and they assured me they would never actually excise the non-compete), I still refused to sign until that language was taken out. I also got language put into my contract to specifically allow for some of my moonlighting activities that could possibly be seen as a conflict. Both wound up being useful when the company expanded and they attempted to enforce different rules on me. Because my contract said what it said, I was able to get the HR person to back-off and didn't have any fear when I did eventually leave for a competitor. And because of my moonlighting clause, I was able to have side-projects when other employees were often discouraged from doing the same thing (part of me felt bad for having different rules, but if I was capable of getting those clauses put in my contract when I was 24, others were too). It is true that employees, especially lower-level employees, don't always have the leverage to change the contracts they sign (especially at larger companies), but I would personally never sign a non-compete unless there were very specific scenarios involved (i.e. it was either incredibly, incredibly narrow or the company would pay me while I waited out the non-compete), no matter what HR or the recruiter says. You don't need to be adversarial when discussing language or making changes -- most places are reasonable. And if a place isn't reasonable but refuses to remove non-compete language from a contract, even though they swear they will never exercise it, well, that's a giant red flag.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    > if I was capable of getting those clauses put in my contract when I was 24, others were too) > It is true that employees, especially lower-level employees, don't always have the leverage to change the contracts they sign (especially at larger companies) Confused, so do you think this is practical for people or no? There are only so many 3-person startups to go around that would change any terms for anybody...
lostapathy 5y ago
I had an employer hit me with an even more egregious non-compete. It said I couldn't work for 12 months for anyone in a market they were in, or in any market their competitors worked in. Our little sub-$1million startup was selling devices that competed with devices from a bunch of mega players like Dell, IBM and Amazon. Who's left to work for if you can't work for anyone who competes with Amazon?
- simfree 5y ago
  I have seen multiple small companies that contribute to the CNCF demand their employees sign noncompete agreements like this. Even working a retail job would violate this agreement, as that is a market their competitors are in (despite it having no relation to cloud tooling!)
wonderwonder 5y ago
That is the US justice system in a nut shell. Its really just a threat for large companies to bleed people until they cannot afford to fight anymore. They dont need to win, they just need to stay solvent longer than you can.
kbenson 5y ago
> They implored me to trust that they had "never sued anyone" and "have no intentions to", and I think they honestly believe that. It doesn't matter what they believe, because a company does not have the same consistency of goals and actions as a person, and even a person can't be entirely trusted on things (even family sometimes turns on each other if the circumstances are sure enough). A company? Their entire board and management might change over time, or they might be bought out and have another entity with different goals. Put another way, when considering and NDA during hiring, you should consider whether you would work for Oracle under the same NDA. Because what would happen if Oracle bought (or bought a controlling interest) in that company tomorrow? Do you still think you could go on past behavior with regard to legal action? This is the exact same with privacy, and that's where I usually bring this up. It doesn't matter that I think Google is unlikely to do anything bad with the private info they have about me right now. I'm more worried about the Google (or whoever ends up with the data) five, ten or fifteen years from now.
macksd 5y ago
> They implored me to trust that they had "never sued anyone" and "have no intentions to", and I think they honestly believe that. But then why have the non-compete at all? I feel like I'm yelling at a brick wall when I make a fuss of this, but this happens every time I see a doctor too. I'm asked to sign forms acknowledging I've read and understood long legal documents that they don't have a copy of to show me. "It doesn't matter". Well I can't see the doctor without signing it. It only matters if they don't get their way. The same is true of the non-compete: it's because it only benefits them.
- mindslight 5y ago
  Don't make a fuss yourself. Just cross out the bit that says you've read some other mystery documents and sign the truthful version. Let the receptionist be the one to make a fuss.
ransom1538 5y ago
When I worked in California I would sign any non-compete you want. They are thrown out anyway. According to the California Business and Professions Code Section 16600, “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” In other words, non-compete agreements are not enforceable in California.
- dataflow 5y ago
  What happens if you leave California for a couple days and do a bit of work in another state without a similar clause?
Akronymus 5y ago
> They implored me to trust that they had "never sued anyone" and "have no intentions to",... For me, I have basically the same thing, but when I brought that up they straight up told me it'd be non-enforcable for the most part [1], along with that they put it there, because they had some people who started there just to get access to some expensive training, then left for a competitor/started their own company. [1] which is actually the case

wolverine876 5y ago

> They implored me to trust that they had "never sued anyone" and "have no intentions to", and I think they honestly believe that. But then why have the non-compete at all? Exactly. 'That's great; we can resolve that issue easily. Let's just skip the non-compete - you're not using it anyway and I'm not comfortable with it.' EDIT: A non-lawyer's suggestion (talk to a lawyer before you do this): Skip signing or edit documents (cross out and initial sections you don't like, add words - and initial each change) and then sign and send it back. Don't say a thing; leave it to them to bring it up - most people won't bother disputing it with you.

ozim 5y ago
They are not using it but just imagine that company gets acquired by people who do those kind of things. Contract with company is not contract with current management only. I don't know who will be there in 2 years in charge. My current company was acquired by a bigger company like a year ago, fast forward one year - even bigger company is now owner of our parent company.
- b3morales 5y ago
  Not to mention that the person making the assurances -- hiring manager, or even worse, recruiter (who may not even be an employee!) -- is not likely the person who makes the decision to enforce the clause.
throwawaycities 5y ago
Well we have never had to sue anyone because no one has ever actually called our bluff when we send them a threatening demand/cease and desist letter from our lawyers. So if you decide to call our bluff in the future just know we won’t sue you…because we don’t have to sue, our agreement makes you waive your right to have the case heard by a court in lieu of mediation by a mediator of our choosing, from a mediation company we send all our cases to.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  > makes you waive your right to have the case heard by a court in lieu of mediation by a mediator of our choosing This really should be made explicitly illegal. It should not be possible for an individual to surrender the right to bring a dispute in front of the court.
  - blunte 5y ago
    Who contributes most to politicians - individuals, or corporations and PACs funded by non-listed corps? And actually, who writes a significant part of new bills, some of which become laws? Yes, corps. It's not surprising then that the legal system has some extra benefits for the corporations.

masklinn 5y ago

> I'm in a US state that allows non-competes and recently turned down a job because I wasn't comfortable with the non-compete expressly because the company's opinion of its own market was so broad. They implored me to trust that they had "never sued anyone" and "have no intentions to", and I think they honestly believe that. But then why have the non-compete at all? FWIW you can try editing the contract, removing the NCC clause, or tacking on steep consideration for exercising the NCC (as well as hard limit on it). If they never sued anyone and have no intention to, they don't need an NCC clause, strike it out and ask them to sigh the updated contract.

pc86 5y ago
They don't even need to sign it. You've only signed the edited version, so they can either use the edited version or not have a non-compete. If you're comfortable with the edited version it doesn't really matter which one they choose.
- tacon 5y ago
  If the non-compete is just a part of the overall employment contract, that means you are working without a contract. That can be problematic if the contract establishes benefits for you, like your salary, your bonus, your vacation, etc., etc.
  - pc86 5y ago
    Good point that I definitely overlooked. I was assuming the NC was a distinct document.
stevesimmons 5y ago
> tacking on steep consideration for exercising the NCC (as well as hard limit on it) Now I'm mid-career, employers want to hire me for my experience. If presented with a non-complete clause, I first strike it out, saying it isn't fair that you stop me working in my core area of expertise, when you're hiring me for exactly that reason. If that gets refused, I instead add a clause that says any period where the non-compete is enforced will be paid at my full salary. In practice, there ends up being a short discussion with HR, some thinking behind the scenes, and that clause is allowed. And when I eventually leave, the non-compete period ends up being waived.

baron816 5y ago

You did the right thing. It’s totally possible that they come back to you and say “alright, we’ll drop the non-compete.” Especially if the feds appear to be heading towards voiding them all anyway.

zippergz 5y ago

Also the people claiming (and believing) that they have no intention of suing are not the people who make the decision to sue or not (unless it's an extremely small company, or you are an important enough hire to be discussing this with the CEO and General Counsel). Even if they have the best intentions, some random recruiter or manager really has no insight into this.

filmgirlcw 5y ago
Absolutely -- very early in my career, a startup I worked at had non-compete language in my original employment contract (naming very specific places I couldn't be poached to take a job at) and even though the company was very small and the person who made me the job offer was the COO (and they assured me they would never actually excise the non-compete), I still refused to sign until that language was taken out. I also got language put into my contract to specifically allow for some of my moonlighting activities that could possibly be seen as a conflict. Both wound up being useful when the company expanded and they attempted to enforce different rules on me. Because my contract said what it said, I was able to get the HR person to back-off and didn't have any fear when I did eventually leave for a competitor. And because of my moonlighting clause, I was able to have side-projects when other employees were often discouraged from doing the same thing (part of me felt bad for having different rules, but if I was capable of getting those clauses put in my contract when I was 24, others were too). It is true that employees, especially lower-level employees, don't always have the leverage to change the contracts they sign (especially at larger companies), but I would personally never sign a non-compete unless there were very specific scenarios involved (i.e. it was either incredibly, incredibly narrow or the company would pay me while I waited out the non-compete), no matter what HR or the recruiter says. You don't need to be adversarial when discussing language or making changes -- most places are reasonable. And if a place isn't reasonable but refuses to remove non-compete language from a contract, even though they swear they will never exercise it, well, that's a giant red flag.
- dataflow 5y ago
  > if I was capable of getting those clauses put in my contract when I was 24, others were too) > It is true that employees, especially lower-level employees, don't always have the leverage to change the contracts they sign (especially at larger companies) Confused, so do you think this is practical for people or no? There are only so many 3-person startups to go around that would change any terms for anybody...

lostapathy 5y ago

I had an employer hit me with an even more egregious non-compete. It said I couldn't work for 12 months for anyone in a market they were in, or in any market their competitors worked in. Our little sub-$1million startup was selling devices that competed with devices from a bunch of mega players like Dell, IBM and Amazon. Who's left to work for if you can't work for anyone who competes with Amazon?

simfree 5y ago
I have seen multiple small companies that contribute to the CNCF demand their employees sign noncompete agreements like this. Even working a retail job would violate this agreement, as that is a market their competitors are in (despite it having no relation to cloud tooling!)

wonderwonder 5y ago

That is the US justice system in a nut shell. Its really just a threat for large companies to bleed people until they cannot afford to fight anymore. They dont need to win, they just need to stay solvent longer than you can.

kbenson 5y ago

> They implored me to trust that they had "never sued anyone" and "have no intentions to", and I think they honestly believe that. It doesn't matter what they believe, because a company does not have the same consistency of goals and actions as a person, and even a person can't be entirely trusted on things (even family sometimes turns on each other if the circumstances are sure enough). A company? Their entire board and management might change over time, or they might be bought out and have another entity with different goals. Put another way, when considering and NDA during hiring, you should consider whether you would work for Oracle under the same NDA. Because what would happen if Oracle bought (or bought a controlling interest) in that company tomorrow? Do you still think you could go on past behavior with regard to legal action? This is the exact same with privacy, and that's where I usually bring this up. It doesn't matter that I think Google is unlikely to do anything bad with the private info they have about me right now. I'm more worried about the Google (or whoever ends up with the data) five, ten or fifteen years from now.

macksd 5y ago

> They implored me to trust that they had "never sued anyone" and "have no intentions to", and I think they honestly believe that. But then why have the non-compete at all? I feel like I'm yelling at a brick wall when I make a fuss of this, but this happens every time I see a doctor too. I'm asked to sign forms acknowledging I've read and understood long legal documents that they don't have a copy of to show me. "It doesn't matter". Well I can't see the doctor without signing it. It only matters if they don't get their way. The same is true of the non-compete: it's because it only benefits them.

mindslight 5y ago
Don't make a fuss yourself. Just cross out the bit that says you've read some other mystery documents and sign the truthful version. Let the receptionist be the one to make a fuss.

ransom1538 5y ago

When I worked in California I would sign any non-compete you want. They are thrown out anyway. According to the California Business and Professions Code Section 16600, “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” In other words, non-compete agreements are not enforceable in California.

dataflow 5y ago
What happens if you leave California for a couple days and do a bit of work in another state without a similar clause?

Akronymus 5y ago

> They implored me to trust that they had "never sued anyone" and "have no intentions to",... For me, I have basically the same thing, but when I brought that up they straight up told me it'd be non-enforcable for the most part [1], along with that they put it there, because they had some people who started there just to get access to some expensive training, then left for a competitor/started their own company. [1] which is actually the case