4 ms·

I interviewed for a job and got accepted. There were no contracts until I was hired, gave my 2 weeks notice at the former job, and then on the first day was pr

I interviewed for a job and got accepted. There were no contracts until I was hired, gave my 2 weeks notice at the former job, and then on the first day was presented with a non-compete to sign just as "routine paperwork". I didn't sign, but had already gave notice at the previous job. Luckily I was single, with no family or debt, and found a near-minimum wage job as an electrician's helper. That was 5 o 6 years ago, I shudder to think what I would do now in this economy. What happens when you are presented with a non-compete after a day or week of being employed? If you quit, can you get unemployment benefits? It's a hard situation. I live in Louisiana, btw. An edit to the above: I tried negotiating in a respectful manner but didn't have much leverage after quitting my previous job and being told "What are you, a lawyer?"

arghnoname 15y ago
I had something similar happen. A month or two into a job (which I relocated for) they notified me that they had 'forgotten' some standard paper work, one of which was a non-compete that said, essentially, that I couldn't work in tech for a year after leaving the company. It's a very nasty situation. I had incurred what was significant expense for me at the time moving and my previous position had been filled. It was very early in my career, so getting a job would have taken longer than the meager savings I had time to accumulate by that time. So I signed it. I consider having savings enough to be without work for a year, at minimum, over crap like this is a high priority for me. So also is not being at the arbitrary whims of the employer in a fairly one-sided power dynamic.
- hga 15y ago
  In this case you might have had a out if you could have convinced a judge/jury that their lateness made it from a real contract, "you sign away these rights in return for a job" to "... in return for keeping your job" which doesn't count. Iffy in your case, but it's not uncommon for companies to e.g. get new financing from not so clue-full investors who want to [ fill in the blank ] the employees. Of course, if you sign it anyway under those conditions the mere threat of a lawsuit can prevent you from getting hired (keeping a low profile helps a lot there) or starting up a new business. Or you could just move to California.
  - geebee 15y ago
    IANAL, of course, but I read that non-competes can be enforced in California if they were valid where they were signed. In other words, you can't nullify a non-compete by moving to California. Sorry about the no cite on that, I think it was from a Time magazine article a few years ago.
    - hga 15y ago
      To my memory, this is not true. California says "they're null and void within our borders and that's that". Rather like slavery, come to think of it, the big issue of the status of a slave who escaped to a free state. Dred Scott is not considered to be one of the finer moments in US Supreme Court history. Are you sure you're not remembering a case that falls under the exceptions to California law?
      - geebee 15y ago
        well, I should have researched this better before mouthing off about it. Looks like you're right. http://lawzilla.com/content/noncompete.shtml http://lawzilla.com/content/noncompete.shtml "Who wins often depends upon a race to the courthouse. For multi-state employers it is often a rush to the courthouse to determine if a non-compete agreement is valid. The employer's strategy is to get an order outside of California in their favor. The employee or California prospective employer's strategy is to get an order within California in their favor. In the face of dueling, and opposing orders, the first to the courthouse may win because states often must give effect to orders from other courts." The article I recall probably was about someone in california who was bound by a non-compete, but it wasn't the california courts that did it? Anyway, my lack of expertise is really showing here, so I should probably stop. All I really wanted to say is yeah, I had that wrong.

arghnoname 15y ago

I had something similar happen. A month or two into a job (which I relocated for) they notified me that they had 'forgotten' some standard paper work, one of which was a non-compete that said, essentially, that I couldn't work in tech for a year after leaving the company. It's a very nasty situation. I had incurred what was significant expense for me at the time moving and my previous position had been filled. It was very early in my career, so getting a job would have taken longer than the meager savings I had time to accumulate by that time. So I signed it. I consider having savings enough to be without work for a year, at minimum, over crap like this is a high priority for me. So also is not being at the arbitrary whims of the employer in a fairly one-sided power dynamic.

hga 15y ago
In this case you might have had a out if you could have convinced a judge/jury that their lateness made it from a real contract, "you sign away these rights in return for a job" to "... in return for keeping your job" which doesn't count. Iffy in your case, but it's not uncommon for companies to e.g. get new financing from not so clue-full investors who want to [ fill in the blank ] the employees. Of course, if you sign it anyway under those conditions the mere threat of a lawsuit can prevent you from getting hired (keeping a low profile helps a lot there) or starting up a new business. Or you could just move to California.
- geebee 15y ago
  IANAL, of course, but I read that non-competes can be enforced in California if they were valid where they were signed. In other words, you can't nullify a non-compete by moving to California. Sorry about the no cite on that, I think it was from a Time magazine article a few years ago.
  - hga 15y ago
    To my memory, this is not true. California says "they're null and void within our borders and that's that". Rather like slavery, come to think of it, the big issue of the status of a slave who escaped to a free state. Dred Scott is not considered to be one of the finer moments in US Supreme Court history. Are you sure you're not remembering a case that falls under the exceptions to California law?
    - geebee 15y ago
      well, I should have researched this better before mouthing off about it. Looks like you're right. http://lawzilla.com/content/noncompete.shtml http://lawzilla.com/content/noncompete.shtml "Who wins often depends upon a race to the courthouse. For multi-state employers it is often a rush to the courthouse to determine if a non-compete agreement is valid. The employer's strategy is to get an order outside of California in their favor. The employee or California prospective employer's strategy is to get an order within California in their favor. In the face of dueling, and opposing orders, the first to the courthouse may win because states often must give effect to orders from other courts." The article I recall probably was about someone in california who was bound by a non-compete, but it wasn't the california courts that did it? Anyway, my lack of expertise is really showing here, so I should probably stop. All I really wanted to say is yeah, I had that wrong.