5 ms·

Non-competes are incredibly unfair on workers. Companies already have a way of stopping their trade secrets from walking out the door - make the employee's lif

Non-competes are incredibly unfair on workers. Companies already have a way of stopping their trade secrets from walking out the door - make the employee's life better than what they would have working for the competitor. Instead of that, what do we see? Employers that grudgingly give tiny pay rises to loyal employees that are essential cogs to their operations. I can't feel terribly sorry for the company when the employee decides that their career would be better served working for the competitor.

epoxyhockey 15y ago
Another way companies can stop their trade secrets from walking out the door is a confidentiality agreement. I tell all of my prospective employers that I don't sign non-competes, but I will sign a confidentiality agreement. A non-compete is professional suicide, in my opinion. There is no upside to the employee at all.
- dhimes 15y ago
  A non-compete should be accompanied by a commensurate severance package in order to be taken seriously by a prospective employee.
  - nvarsj 15y ago
    Agreed. In the finance industry this is the norm in my experience - 100% salary for duration of the non-compete and a severance package.
  - mattm 15y ago
    Also agreed. If an employer is hindering you from working for X amount of time, they should be paying you for that time.
- jamesbkel 15y ago
  Completely agree. I was in a very similar to the woman in the article. I started at a Boston Medical/Life-science research LLC as a statistical programmer. The intention was to bring me on as the head of stats/quant work since they had been farming it for the past few years. After 2 months they decided they didn't actually have enough work to justify paying me (can't blame them for that, it reached a point where I literally was walking up to fellow employees asking if there was anything I could do to pitch in since I had NOTHING to do and I also don't consider "killing time on facebook/youtube etc." acceptable when I'm on their dollar). Point being, I did not sign their boilerplate non-compete. They were actually fine with that as long I signed a confidentiality agreement... and that's only fair.
damorip 15y ago
Don't like it, don't sign it. Was she under duress when signing? Nothing in the article suggests she was. She signed the contract voluntarily and should stand by her decision. If she was too lazy to do her due diligance before signing, that's her fault too.
- unshift 15y ago
  it's very common for people to be as compliant as possible during the hiring process so as not to jeopardize the job, especially their first job out of school. that tends to be the result of years of people saying "you're lucky to get a job at all" combined with a long search and endless interviews. and while yes, she did sign the non compete, it doesn't mean it's not bullshit, which is the entire point of the article. of course you can be a hardass and say "she signed it", "should have read it more carefully", "her fault", etc, but now she's on the dole until the clause expires because someone had a hissy fit and threatened to sue her employer. it's a crappy, stifling situation all around which is what the article aimed to point out.
  - WingForward 15y ago
    No, she's on the dole by choice. She was 25 years old, making $60K a year and quit for another job. Then she chose to quit that job too.
    - fr0sty 15y ago
      > Just before July 4th, Angela, a 26 year-old Boston University alumna, was laid off from her job as a software trainer. She was fired after her previous employer threatened legal action. You can't say she "chose to quit" that job.
      - WingForward 15y ago
        "Angela worked at Bullhorn for about three years. She left the company on her own terms in October 2010 to work as a software trainer at a Boston-area hospital, but after seven months decided "it wasn't what I wanted to do." So she took a job as a business analyst with another company that sells software to recruiters." She chose to quit two jobs before running into trouble at her third. And "sic" is used to imply that the original quote was grammatically incorrect. Your usage implies I misused the word "chose" when you should have rephrased your sentence to make the tense correct.

epoxyhockey 15y ago

Another way companies can stop their trade secrets from walking out the door is a confidentiality agreement. I tell all of my prospective employers that I don't sign non-competes, but I will sign a confidentiality agreement. A non-compete is professional suicide, in my opinion. There is no upside to the employee at all.

dhimes 15y ago
A non-compete should be accompanied by a commensurate severance package in order to be taken seriously by a prospective employee.
- nvarsj 15y ago
  Agreed. In the finance industry this is the norm in my experience - 100% salary for duration of the non-compete and a severance package.
- mattm 15y ago
  Also agreed. If an employer is hindering you from working for X amount of time, they should be paying you for that time.
jamesbkel 15y ago
Completely agree. I was in a very similar to the woman in the article. I started at a Boston Medical/Life-science research LLC as a statistical programmer. The intention was to bring me on as the head of stats/quant work since they had been farming it for the past few years. After 2 months they decided they didn't actually have enough work to justify paying me (can't blame them for that, it reached a point where I literally was walking up to fellow employees asking if there was anything I could do to pitch in since I had NOTHING to do and I also don't consider "killing time on facebook/youtube etc." acceptable when I'm on their dollar). Point being, I did not sign their boilerplate non-compete. They were actually fine with that as long I signed a confidentiality agreement... and that's only fair.

damorip 15y ago

Don't like it, don't sign it. Was she under duress when signing? Nothing in the article suggests she was. She signed the contract voluntarily and should stand by her decision. If she was too lazy to do her due diligance before signing, that's her fault too.

unshift 15y ago
it's very common for people to be as compliant as possible during the hiring process so as not to jeopardize the job, especially their first job out of school. that tends to be the result of years of people saying "you're lucky to get a job at all" combined with a long search and endless interviews. and while yes, she did sign the non compete, it doesn't mean it's not bullshit, which is the entire point of the article. of course you can be a hardass and say "she signed it", "should have read it more carefully", "her fault", etc, but now she's on the dole until the clause expires because someone had a hissy fit and threatened to sue her employer. it's a crappy, stifling situation all around which is what the article aimed to point out.
- WingForward 15y ago
  No, she's on the dole by choice. She was 25 years old, making $60K a year and quit for another job. Then she chose to quit that job too.
  - fr0sty 15y ago
    > Just before July 4th, Angela, a 26 year-old Boston University alumna, was laid off from her job as a software trainer. She was fired after her previous employer threatened legal action. You can't say she "chose to quit" that job.
    - WingForward 15y ago
      "Angela worked at Bullhorn for about three years. She left the company on her own terms in October 2010 to work as a software trainer at a Boston-area hospital, but after seven months decided "it wasn't what I wanted to do." So she took a job as a business analyst with another company that sells software to recruiters." She chose to quit two jobs before running into trouble at her third. And "sic" is used to imply that the original quote was grammatically incorrect. Your usage implies I misused the word "chose" when you should have rephrased your sentence to make the tense correct.