6 ms·

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-com

by rosndo 5y 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 5y ago
[deleted]
lucasmullens 5y ago
I appreciate honest people, especially when they're honest even though it isn't in their best interest.
- rosndo 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
  Not advertising the fact that you previously signed a non-binding unenforceable noncompete is not lying by omission.
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    Except that as we heard from many here, they might very well be binding and enforceable in many states.
    - rosndo 5y ago
      >it wasn't an issue of enforceability
      - cycomanic 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
harrisonjackson 5y 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)_/¯

by rosndo 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lucasmullens 5y ago

I appreciate honest people, especially when they're honest even though it isn't in their best interest.

rosndo 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
Not advertising the fact that you previously signed a non-binding unenforceable noncompete is not lying by omission.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  Except that as we heard from many here, they might very well be binding and enforceable in many states.
  - rosndo 5y ago
    >it wasn't an issue of enforceability
    - cycomanic 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago

harrisonjackson 5y 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)_/¯