8 ms·

It's interesting how many US people think that non-compete agreements are fair. In the EU and UK, the general rule is that you employment contract ends as soon

It's interesting how many US people think that non-compete agreements are fair. In the EU and UK, the general rule is that you employment contract ends as soon as the company stops paying you. Once you have left the company, you cannot be bound by the old employment contract. Some companies choose to pay gardening leave, but in practice you cannot be forced to accept it for any longer than your agreed notice period, and while there might be grounds to sue for breach of contract if you just walked away completely, in general a company can't force anyone to work somewhere if they don't want to. The protections that the non-compete are intended to provide are already provided through other means that will almost certainly apply - things like NDAs or IP theft (which would include knowingly transferring proprietary secrets or processes). Sure, it'd take more time in discovery to prove such an issue, but in general employee protections are considered more important to society than commercial concerns. On the other hand, someone found guilty of IP theft or breaking an NDA will probably find getting a similar level job very hard in the future, because their reputation would be ruined.

AtlasBarfed 2y ago
Exactly you want to enforce rights after our term of employment is done Then fucking pay me, naked capitalism
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  The whole point is to not pay you, to bind you at no cost. It’s formalized wage theft under the guise of corporate protection. Anyway, this action will certainly help come Election Day. Maybe the Democrats will mention it during their convention, good PR for them.
- ars 2y ago
  Usually they do in fact pay, they want you to sign in exchange for severance pay. You don't want to sign, then don't. They can't force you. Or you sign in advance, in exchange for what you feel is good enough compensation, so again, they are paying you.
  - dalyons 2y ago
    That’s true for tech workers and other highly paid folk. That’s not at all “usually” true - I think you should go and look up all the cases of fast food workers, veterinarians, dentists etc that are slapped with non competes with no severance. They’re 100% abusive, and the majority
    - ars 2y ago
      You can't "slap" someone with a non-compete. They have to agree to it. What's making these people agree to the non-compete? What's stopping them from just walking away and not signing?
      - Matumio 2y ago
        Not everyone can afford to just walk away more than once or twice. And people may perceive the uncertain alternative of not getting that job right now as much worse than it would actually turn out, and agree to stuff they don't really want. Like the point made in this short comedy scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE
IdiocyInAction 2y ago
Non-competes are a thing both in the UK and several EU countries and quite common in some jobs. Also quite enforceable and also not necessarily paid.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Approaching 50 and I never ever seen one.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    How many EU countries did you work in those 50 years? Come to Austria and you'll see non-competes everywhere and they're enforceable since they're legal by federal labor/employment law since the private industry lobbied for them because quote "employees taking IP knowledge with them is the biggest threat to employers, bigger than industrial espionage". In other EU companies you can find them too but they might not be enforceable if they're not backed up by local laws in those countries so always check local laws before doubting over non competes in contracts.
    - soco 2y ago
      Indeed thy are but there are so many aspects that it's quite difficult to compare with the US. You have duration limits, salary conditions, special situations in which it might be effective, proof of damage, and in any case, it is not allowed to block the employer from working. So like the meme: yes, but actually no.
    - pjmlp 2y ago
      Portugal, Spain, France, Switzerland, Germany, Greece, UK, in various forms of employment.
  - SJetKaran 2y ago
    I worked in Netherlands in a startup and we had a non-compete
tptacek 2y ago
It's an odd argument to suggest that employment decisions are less constrained in Europe than in the US, isn't it?
downrightmike 2y ago
No one working thinks they are fair. Its either sign your life away or lose healthcare, shelter, food, pretty much everything. The lucky ones live in states that slap these things down.
pandaman 2y ago
> In the EU and UK, the general rule is that you employment contract ends as soon as the company stops paying you. It's essentially the same in the US, you cannot really enforce a non-compete without pay. Some companies still do this relying on the fact that nobody wants to go to court, and this is why the judge tells the FTC to go after those. > but in practice you cannot be forced to accept it for any longer than your agreed notice period But you can be forced to work through notice period? Think of a non-compete as a 6-12 months notice period when you don't have to work (and can actually work for a whole bunch of different jobs, just not for the competitors). >The protections that the non-compete are intended to provide are already provided through other means that will almost certainly apply - things like NDAs or IP theft (which would include knowingly transferring proprietary secrets or processes). Consider a sales manager going to a competitor with the knowledge of prices for the top 10 customers. You can easily memorize these even if you already don't know them by heart. So he takes the same position at the competitor and tells the sales people to go to X and offer $YYY contract, which just happens to be a decent discount from what they currently pay to the former employer. How do you invoke NDAs, IP theft or whatever to deal with this?
- ralferoo 2y ago
  > But you can be forced to work through notice period? No, they can't force you to work per se, but you could (in principle) be sued for breach of contract if you don't serve your notice period. Most employers are fairly pragmatic in the UK. If the employee requests a shorter notice period at resignation time, and they're not actually on the critical path for something, most employers will agree. If the employee doesn't request a shorter notice period, many companies will stipulate that all unused holiday allowance must be taken at the end of the notice period - so the pay period is exactly the notice period from resignation, but the employee finishes early. > Think of a non-compete as a 6-12 months notice period when you don't have to work That's fine if you're on paid gardening leave. If you're not being paid, they have no right to dictate whether, or for who, you can work. > (and can actually work for a whole bunch of different jobs, just not for the competitors). Typically in the UK, the provisions of gardening leave explicitly state that you cannot undertake any paid work. You can study, you can do DIY, you can do garden work (hence the name), even do voluntary work, but you can't take on any other paid work. > Consider a sales manager going to a competitor with the knowledge of prices for the top 10 customers. Typically, if the employee took commercially sensitive customer data (and that includes names, position, phone, email address), then they could be sued for breach of contract. It doesn't matter if they copied the data via USB stick, printed it out or memorised it - they're still breaking the non-disclosure agreements they'd have signed. I should probably clarify that there are non-compete agreements in the UK, but typically they're not enforceable and the real reason they're there is to scare the employee. They're not part of employment law, and so it would be deemed to be a normal contract that would be tested in court based on reasonableness, and in general an employee's right to work would override any restriction in a previous contract. There's actually consideration going on right now that recognises that non-competes exist and to restrict the scope of them. To quote the document [1] that describes the status quo: > There is no provision in the UK employment statutory framework for non-compete clauses, including in Northern Ireland where employment law is devolved. As such there is no statutory definition. However, non-compete clauses are subject to the common law principle of “restraint of trade”. The principle provides that a worker should be free to follow his trade and use his skills without undue interference, thereby rendering a contractual term (such as a non-compete clause) purporting to restrict that worker's freedom to work for others or carry out his trade or business void unless it is: (a) designed to protect legitimate business interests; and (b) no wider than reasonably necessary. > Consequently, even where non-compete clauses are found in employment contracts, they may not necessarily be enforceable, unless a court considers that the non-compete clause is to protect a “legitimate business interest” and is no wider than reasonably necessary. > Simply proving that the employer will suffer from “more competition” is not counted as a legitimate business interest. In broad terms, the courts have recognised that a legitimate business interest may include protecting trade connections (with customers, clients or suppliers) and, more generally, goodwill; trade secrets and other confidential information; and maintaining stability of the workforce. [1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f68b440f0b6230268f53d/bis-16-270-non-compete-clause-call-for-evidence.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f68b440f0b...
spacemadness 2y ago
It's not the people living under these rules that think they're fair. It's the capital owning executive class trying to control everything in their favor, regardless of the outcome on their workers lives. Well them and their judge friends in Texas apparently.

AtlasBarfed 2y ago

Exactly you want to enforce rights after our term of employment is done Then fucking pay me, naked capitalism

toomuchtodo 2y ago
The whole point is to not pay you, to bind you at no cost. It’s formalized wage theft under the guise of corporate protection. Anyway, this action will certainly help come Election Day. Maybe the Democrats will mention it during their convention, good PR for them.
ars 2y ago
Usually they do in fact pay, they want you to sign in exchange for severance pay. You don't want to sign, then don't. They can't force you. Or you sign in advance, in exchange for what you feel is good enough compensation, so again, they are paying you.
- dalyons 2y ago
  That’s true for tech workers and other highly paid folk. That’s not at all “usually” true - I think you should go and look up all the cases of fast food workers, veterinarians, dentists etc that are slapped with non competes with no severance. They’re 100% abusive, and the majority
  - ars 2y ago
    You can't "slap" someone with a non-compete. They have to agree to it. What's making these people agree to the non-compete? What's stopping them from just walking away and not signing?
    - Matumio 2y ago
      Not everyone can afford to just walk away more than once or twice. And people may perceive the uncertain alternative of not getting that job right now as much worse than it would actually turn out, and agree to stuff they don't really want. Like the point made in this short comedy scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE

IdiocyInAction 2y ago

Non-competes are a thing both in the UK and several EU countries and quite common in some jobs. Also quite enforceable and also not necessarily paid.

pjmlp 2y ago
Approaching 50 and I never ever seen one.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  How many EU countries did you work in those 50 years? Come to Austria and you'll see non-competes everywhere and they're enforceable since they're legal by federal labor/employment law since the private industry lobbied for them because quote "employees taking IP knowledge with them is the biggest threat to employers, bigger than industrial espionage". In other EU companies you can find them too but they might not be enforceable if they're not backed up by local laws in those countries so always check local laws before doubting over non competes in contracts.
  - soco 2y ago
    Indeed thy are but there are so many aspects that it's quite difficult to compare with the US. You have duration limits, salary conditions, special situations in which it might be effective, proof of damage, and in any case, it is not allowed to block the employer from working. So like the meme: yes, but actually no.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    Portugal, Spain, France, Switzerland, Germany, Greece, UK, in various forms of employment.
- SJetKaran 2y ago
  I worked in Netherlands in a startup and we had a non-compete

tptacek 2y ago

It's an odd argument to suggest that employment decisions are less constrained in Europe than in the US, isn't it?

downrightmike 2y ago

No one working thinks they are fair. Its either sign your life away or lose healthcare, shelter, food, pretty much everything. The lucky ones live in states that slap these things down.

pandaman 2y ago

> In the EU and UK, the general rule is that you employment contract ends as soon as the company stops paying you. It's essentially the same in the US, you cannot really enforce a non-compete without pay. Some companies still do this relying on the fact that nobody wants to go to court, and this is why the judge tells the FTC to go after those. > but in practice you cannot be forced to accept it for any longer than your agreed notice period But you can be forced to work through notice period? Think of a non-compete as a 6-12 months notice period when you don't have to work (and can actually work for a whole bunch of different jobs, just not for the competitors). >The protections that the non-compete are intended to provide are already provided through other means that will almost certainly apply - things like NDAs or IP theft (which would include knowingly transferring proprietary secrets or processes). Consider a sales manager going to a competitor with the knowledge of prices for the top 10 customers. You can easily memorize these even if you already don't know them by heart. So he takes the same position at the competitor and tells the sales people to go to X and offer $YYY contract, which just happens to be a decent discount from what they currently pay to the former employer. How do you invoke NDAs, IP theft or whatever to deal with this?

ralferoo 2y ago
> But you can be forced to work through notice period? No, they can't force you to work per se, but you could (in principle) be sued for breach of contract if you don't serve your notice period. Most employers are fairly pragmatic in the UK. If the employee requests a shorter notice period at resignation time, and they're not actually on the critical path for something, most employers will agree. If the employee doesn't request a shorter notice period, many companies will stipulate that all unused holiday allowance must be taken at the end of the notice period - so the pay period is exactly the notice period from resignation, but the employee finishes early. > Think of a non-compete as a 6-12 months notice period when you don't have to work That's fine if you're on paid gardening leave. If you're not being paid, they have no right to dictate whether, or for who, you can work. > (and can actually work for a whole bunch of different jobs, just not for the competitors). Typically in the UK, the provisions of gardening leave explicitly state that you cannot undertake any paid work. You can study, you can do DIY, you can do garden work (hence the name), even do voluntary work, but you can't take on any other paid work. > Consider a sales manager going to a competitor with the knowledge of prices for the top 10 customers. Typically, if the employee took commercially sensitive customer data (and that includes names, position, phone, email address), then they could be sued for breach of contract. It doesn't matter if they copied the data via USB stick, printed it out or memorised it - they're still breaking the non-disclosure agreements they'd have signed. I should probably clarify that there are non-compete agreements in the UK, but typically they're not enforceable and the real reason they're there is to scare the employee. They're not part of employment law, and so it would be deemed to be a normal contract that would be tested in court based on reasonableness, and in general an employee's right to work would override any restriction in a previous contract. There's actually consideration going on right now that recognises that non-competes exist and to restrict the scope of them. To quote the document [1] that describes the status quo: > There is no provision in the UK employment statutory framework for non-compete clauses, including in Northern Ireland where employment law is devolved. As such there is no statutory definition. However, non-compete clauses are subject to the common law principle of “restraint of trade”. The principle provides that a worker should be free to follow his trade and use his skills without undue interference, thereby rendering a contractual term (such as a non-compete clause) purporting to restrict that worker's freedom to work for others or carry out his trade or business void unless it is: (a) designed to protect legitimate business interests; and (b) no wider than reasonably necessary. > Consequently, even where non-compete clauses are found in employment contracts, they may not necessarily be enforceable, unless a court considers that the non-compete clause is to protect a “legitimate business interest” and is no wider than reasonably necessary. > Simply proving that the employer will suffer from “more competition” is not counted as a legitimate business interest. In broad terms, the courts have recognised that a legitimate business interest may include protecting trade connections (with customers, clients or suppliers) and, more generally, goodwill; trade secrets and other confidential information; and maintaining stability of the workforce. [1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f68b440f0b6230268f53d/bis-16-270-non-compete-clause-call-for-evidence.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f68b440f0b...

spacemadness 2y ago

It's not the people living under these rules that think they're fair. It's the capital owning executive class trying to control everything in their favor, regardless of the outcome on their workers lives. Well them and their judge friends in Texas apparently.