3 ms·

My comment from the blog: Additional point: the candidate may not be able to work (paid) at another company for a week without breaking part of their contract,

My comment from the blog: Additional point: the candidate may not be able to work (paid) at another company for a week without breaking part of their contract, such as a "devotion" clause. (For example, something like a "the Employee must not, without the Company's prior written consent, engage in any other employment or business activity" line in the contract.)

yareally 13y ago
Do such contract stipulations ever actually hold up court or have been challenged?
- dsl 13y ago
  Do you really want to hire someone who cares so little for agreements they sign in good faith?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - VLM 13y ago
    You can't sign something unethical and immoral in good faith, by definition. You need a meeting of the minds on an equal playing field.
    - dsl 13y ago
      > something unethical and immoral That sir, is your opinion and has no bearing on the legal definition of good faith. There is nothing inherently evil about exclusive employment agreements for full time employees and is fair to both parties.
- _delirium 13y ago
  I'm only aware of one case challenging it, and it was a pretty specific context (a 1982 case [1] in which tenured professors challenged their university's ban on taking a second full-time job, which was upheld). In general though these kinds of restrictions tend to be upheld unless there is a state law against them. There have occasionally been proposals that a robust "right to work" law should generally protect the right to form new contracts selling one's labor to a willing buyer, and void any exclusivity contracts with other parties that would interfere with that right. But in practice all states that I know of with a "right to work" law have adopted a much more limited version of the right, which only voids very specific kinds of exclusivity contracts (relating to employer–union contracts). Some states separately void noncompete agreements under a related principle. I'm not aware of any state voiding contracts relating to exclusive employment with the employer for the duration of the contract, at least for full-time, salaried employees. [1] http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17339797085685410159 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1733979708568541...
- patja 13y ago
  It is called a moonlighting policy, and I suspect they do hold up. Microsoft had that policy in place for decades. They didn't outright ban moonlighting, but you did need to have a formal agreement with your manager. I think they softened it a bit only to encourage employees to build apps for Windows Phone. I say it probably does hold up because otherwise I am guessing they would have abandoned it. Microsoft has quite a bit of experience with labor dispute litigation. Having billions in cash is like chumming the water for labor law attorneys.
  - Spooky23 13y ago
    More importantly, you usually end up assigning the rights for your work product to your primary employer. So you can get yourself (or your moonlighting customers) into all sorts of trouble. Reference: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/02/issues-with-emp.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/02/issues-with-emp.html

yareally 13y ago

Do such contract stipulations ever actually hold up court or have been challenged?

dsl 13y ago
Do you really want to hire someone who cares so little for agreements they sign in good faith?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- VLM 13y ago
  You can't sign something unethical and immoral in good faith, by definition. You need a meeting of the minds on an equal playing field.
  - dsl 13y ago
    > something unethical and immoral That sir, is your opinion and has no bearing on the legal definition of good faith. There is nothing inherently evil about exclusive employment agreements for full time employees and is fair to both parties.
_delirium 13y ago
I'm only aware of one case challenging it, and it was a pretty specific context (a 1982 case [1] in which tenured professors challenged their university's ban on taking a second full-time job, which was upheld). In general though these kinds of restrictions tend to be upheld unless there is a state law against them. There have occasionally been proposals that a robust "right to work" law should generally protect the right to form new contracts selling one's labor to a willing buyer, and void any exclusivity contracts with other parties that would interfere with that right. But in practice all states that I know of with a "right to work" law have adopted a much more limited version of the right, which only voids very specific kinds of exclusivity contracts (relating to employer–union contracts). Some states separately void noncompete agreements under a related principle. I'm not aware of any state voiding contracts relating to exclusive employment with the employer for the duration of the contract, at least for full-time, salaried employees. [1] http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17339797085685410159 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1733979708568541...
patja 13y ago
It is called a moonlighting policy, and I suspect they do hold up. Microsoft had that policy in place for decades. They didn't outright ban moonlighting, but you did need to have a formal agreement with your manager. I think they softened it a bit only to encourage employees to build apps for Windows Phone. I say it probably does hold up because otherwise I am guessing they would have abandoned it. Microsoft has quite a bit of experience with labor dispute litigation. Having billions in cash is like chumming the water for labor law attorneys.
- Spooky23 13y ago
  More importantly, you usually end up assigning the rights for your work product to your primary employer. So you can get yourself (or your moonlighting customers) into all sorts of trouble. Reference: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/02/issues-with-emp.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/02/issues-with-emp.html