3 ms·

It's amazing to me that non-competes (or one-way non-disparagement, or binding mandatory arbitration) are even legal. At a bare minimum, non-competes should en

It's amazing to me that non-competes (or one-way non-disparagement, or binding mandatory arbitration) are even legal. At a bare minimum, non-competes should entail full salary and benefits during the period of non-competition ("gardening leave") plus an allowance (15% or $30k per year, whichever is less) for education and training during the period, plus a well-defined scope of competition. If you won't pay someone not to work for a competitor for two years, then it's not fucking important that he not work for the competitor. So let him go. Plenty of just-worlders say things like, "Well, no one should sign a contract like that." The problem is that some people are desperate and ruin the negotiation for all of us, and that it's embarrassing to negotiate those terms as an individual. When you're really just looking out for your rights, you end up having to identify yourself as potentially litigious before you even start. This kind of nonsense is exactly why we, in software, need either a professional guild or a union.

nmjohn 12y ago
They aren't always legal - or rather they rarely hold up in the court of law. (USA at least) What I've been told by my lawyer is basically the only time it will hold up is if you can prove that it was violated and your company was significantly harmed as a result (ex: You took 50 clients with you to the new firm). And the time period was reasonable (ex: 5+ year non-competes are likely never held up as the time period is absolutely unreasonable in almost all cases) Additionally, it has to be worth it to the company to actually go after the person who violated the agreement - it is civil not criminal. Which in the end results in a system where they are hardly ever enforced if violated and serve more to scare people from violating them then actually being legally enforceable.
- gumby 12y ago
  Actually they vary by state in the US. Texas has wide ranging and draconian non-complete restrictions. California forbids them. I have worked in both places and I can tell you that California is much better from the POV of employee AND employer.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
judk 12y ago
If your job is special enough that your old employer would enforce a noncompete, then your new employer would buy it out.
- moonka 12y ago
  I don't think enforcement is the only issue. Consider the recent Jimmy Johns non-compete which has made the rounds. As someone who worked in a sandwich shop at the age of 15, I would have signed anything for 5 bucks an hour, and I certainly wouldn't have had the confidence that the agreement wouldn't hold up.This serves as a chilling effect on the employee. This is the scariest part of these tactics in my opinion.

nmjohn 12y ago

They aren't always legal - or rather they rarely hold up in the court of law. (USA at least) What I've been told by my lawyer is basically the only time it will hold up is if you can prove that it was violated and your company was significantly harmed as a result (ex: You took 50 clients with you to the new firm). And the time period was reasonable (ex: 5+ year non-competes are likely never held up as the time period is absolutely unreasonable in almost all cases) Additionally, it has to be worth it to the company to actually go after the person who violated the agreement - it is civil not criminal. Which in the end results in a system where they are hardly ever enforced if violated and serve more to scare people from violating them then actually being legally enforceable.

gumby 12y ago
Actually they vary by state in the US. Texas has wide ranging and draconian non-complete restrictions. California forbids them. I have worked in both places and I can tell you that California is much better from the POV of employee AND employer.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

judk 12y ago

If your job is special enough that your old employer would enforce a noncompete, then your new employer would buy it out.

moonka 12y ago
I don't think enforcement is the only issue. Consider the recent Jimmy Johns non-compete which has made the rounds. As someone who worked in a sandwich shop at the age of 15, I would have signed anything for 5 bucks an hour, and I certainly wouldn't have had the confidence that the agreement wouldn't hold up.This serves as a chilling effect on the employee. This is the scariest part of these tactics in my opinion.