5 ms·

Generally, are non-competes even enforceable? Especially in industries (like cloud providers) where there is a very small number of players.

rantallion 4y ago
This. Every time I see the topic come up, there are countless examples of them being thrown out in court without a fight, usually because they're either too broad (like OP's example of not completing with the entirety of Amazon) or too long (18 months is nuts).
- lesuorac 4y ago
  But do you or a future employer want to go to court over this? Not having it in the first place is a way better solution.
harrisonjackson 4y ago
The couple of times I've had friends or coworkers deal with non-competes it wasn't an issue of enforceability but rather are the employee AND the new employer willing to deal with it. Both times the new company withdrew its employment offers. It is pretty terrible. It leaves the employee at a company they don't want to be at. This was in Colorado and Texas FWIW
- rosndo 4y ago
  Disclosing such a non-compete to a potential employer is such a dumb move that it’s pretty obvious why they would withdraw their offer. Not because the non-compete is scary, but because the potential new hire is clearly an idiot.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - lucasmullens 4y ago
    I appreciate honest people, especially when they're honest even though it isn't in their best interest.
    - rosndo 4y ago
      Easy to say, but I doubt most people would actually let that appreciation affect hiring decisions. A potential hire might also open up about their casual drug use. Would that be points in their favor vs. the other candidate who might very well also take drugs but chooses to not advertise this irrelevant detail to potential employers?
      - bradknowles 4y ago
        When being hired by the DoD, and interviewed for your security clearance, you damn well better tell them about your drug use. If you don't, then you're hiding something from them that could be used as a lever against you in the future by spies from another country. And lying to your employer about things like drug use will get you fired faster than just about anything else. Yes, I did start work in the basement of the Pentagon in 1989 for what was then the Defense Communications Agency. I will let you ascertain for yourself what I may have told them during that interview.
        rosndo 4y ago
        Yes, obviously. Although admitting to casual drug use will pretty much ensure that you won’t get hired. I think you know damn well that jobs requiring a security clearance are a special case. It really doesn’t make sense to bring this up in a general conversation about jobs. > And lying to your employer about things like drug use will get you fired faster than just about anything else. If your employer is the DoD, sure. If you work for a normal company, they’ll never find out unless you have a real problem (or are stupid enough to advertise it).
  - carimura 4y ago
    ouch. what awful advice. lying by omission is not only a terrible way to enter into a trusting relationship with a new employer but could also be committing fraud.
    - rosndo 4y ago
      Not advertising the fact that you previously signed a non-binding unenforceable noncompete is not lying by omission.
      - cycomanic 4y ago
        Except that as we heard from many here, they might very well be binding and enforceable in many states.
        rosndo 4y ago
        >it wasn't an issue of enforceability
        cycomanic 4y ago
        You literally said a "non-binding, unenforceable" so yes this post was about enforceability. You made a false statement with possible serious repercussions for a person following your advise. Now you backtrack that it wasn't about enforceability?
        rosndo 4y ago
        What? I replied to a comment saying: >it wasn't an issue of enforceability I’m not backtracking on anything. Are you ok? If it wasn’t an issue of enforceability, I think we can reasonably assume that the noncompete was not enforceable. Unenforceability was the premise of this conversation, and that wasn’t introduced by me.
        cycomanic 4y ago
  - harrisonjackson 4y ago
    The employee didn't disclose it. The current employer tracked down the new company after they gave notice, found the hiring manager, and started making threats ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
bagels 4y ago
In many states they are.
greyface- 4y ago
Washington State (where Amazon is based) has a law invalidating non-competes in situations where the employee's W-2 compensation is $100k or lower. I would assume that this means lawmakers intend for them to be enforceable in situations where earnings exceed $100k. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.62.020 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.62.020
- AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
  making everything below 100k completely unenforceable doesn't make everything above 100k enforceable, there are still considerable tests to if a non-compete is considered fair or not which governs it's enforceability.
csdreamer7 4y ago
Amazon (and Microsoft) already sues former cloud employees. The question is not "is this enforceable?". The real question is "can you afford the legal fees?". 'Amazon is suing a cloud employee who left for Google, rekindling the debate over non-compete agreements' https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/11/aws-case-against-worker-who-joined-google-reignites-non-compete-debate.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/11/aws-case-against-worker-who-...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
dbcurtis 4y ago
It varies widely by state.
gnopgnip 4y ago
In WA, and many other states, and many countries outside of the US, yes it is enforceable.

rantallion 4y ago

This. Every time I see the topic come up, there are countless examples of them being thrown out in court without a fight, usually because they're either too broad (like OP's example of not completing with the entirety of Amazon) or too long (18 months is nuts).

lesuorac 4y ago
But do you or a future employer want to go to court over this? Not having it in the first place is a way better solution.

harrisonjackson 4y ago

The couple of times I've had friends or coworkers deal with non-competes it wasn't an issue of enforceability but rather are the employee AND the new employer willing to deal with it. Both times the new company withdrew its employment offers. It is pretty terrible. It leaves the employee at a company they don't want to be at. This was in Colorado and Texas FWIW

rosndo 4y ago
Disclosing such a non-compete to a potential employer is such a dumb move that it’s pretty obvious why they would withdraw their offer. Not because the non-compete is scary, but because the potential new hire is clearly an idiot.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lucasmullens 4y ago
  I appreciate honest people, especially when they're honest even though it isn't in their best interest.
  - rosndo 4y ago
    Easy to say, but I doubt most people would actually let that appreciation affect hiring decisions. A potential hire might also open up about their casual drug use. Would that be points in their favor vs. the other candidate who might very well also take drugs but chooses to not advertise this irrelevant detail to potential employers?
    - bradknowles 4y ago
      When being hired by the DoD, and interviewed for your security clearance, you damn well better tell them about your drug use. If you don't, then you're hiding something from them that could be used as a lever against you in the future by spies from another country. And lying to your employer about things like drug use will get you fired faster than just about anything else. Yes, I did start work in the basement of the Pentagon in 1989 for what was then the Defense Communications Agency. I will let you ascertain for yourself what I may have told them during that interview.
      - rosndo 4y ago
        Yes, obviously. Although admitting to casual drug use will pretty much ensure that you won’t get hired. I think you know damn well that jobs requiring a security clearance are a special case. It really doesn’t make sense to bring this up in a general conversation about jobs. > And lying to your employer about things like drug use will get you fired faster than just about anything else. If your employer is the DoD, sure. If you work for a normal company, they’ll never find out unless you have a real problem (or are stupid enough to advertise it).
- carimura 4y ago
  ouch. what awful advice. lying by omission is not only a terrible way to enter into a trusting relationship with a new employer but could also be committing fraud.
  - rosndo 4y ago
    Not advertising the fact that you previously signed a non-binding unenforceable noncompete is not lying by omission.
    - cycomanic 4y ago
      Except that as we heard from many here, they might very well be binding and enforceable in many states.
      - rosndo 4y ago
        >it wasn't an issue of enforceability
        cycomanic 4y ago
        You literally said a "non-binding, unenforceable" so yes this post was about enforceability. You made a false statement with possible serious repercussions for a person following your advise. Now you backtrack that it wasn't about enforceability?
        rosndo 4y ago
        What? I replied to a comment saying: >it wasn't an issue of enforceability I’m not backtracking on anything. Are you ok? If it wasn’t an issue of enforceability, I think we can reasonably assume that the noncompete was not enforceable. Unenforceability was the premise of this conversation, and that wasn’t introduced by me.
        cycomanic 4y ago
- harrisonjackson 4y ago
  The employee didn't disclose it. The current employer tracked down the new company after they gave notice, found the hiring manager, and started making threats ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

bagels 4y ago

In many states they are.

greyface- 4y ago

Washington State (where Amazon is based) has a law invalidating non-competes in situations where the employee's W-2 compensation is $100k or lower. I would assume that this means lawmakers intend for them to be enforceable in situations where earnings exceed $100k. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.62.020 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.62.020

AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
making everything below 100k completely unenforceable doesn't make everything above 100k enforceable, there are still considerable tests to if a non-compete is considered fair or not which governs it's enforceability.

csdreamer7 4y ago

Amazon (and Microsoft) already sues former cloud employees. The question is not "is this enforceable?". The real question is "can you afford the legal fees?". 'Amazon is suing a cloud employee who left for Google, rekindling the debate over non-compete agreements' https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/11/aws-case-against-worker-who-joined-google-reignites-non-compete-debate.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/11/aws-case-against-worker-who-...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

dbcurtis 4y ago

It varies widely by state.

gnopgnip 4y ago

In WA, and many other states, and many countries outside of the US, yes it is enforceable.