201–210 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first line of defence is the trade union. The second one is the labour courts system (Arbeitsgerichte).
Is it feasible in Germany for a trade worker to take a huge corporation to court? I mean, in terms of affording a lawyer, time off from work, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get why people sign contracts that have broad non-competes in the language. I always have and always will scrub those out of a contract before I even contemplate signing it. No company that thinks it's okay to prevent me working is a company I want to work for. If they want me badly enough, they'll agree to a fair and balanced contract and that includes removal of any contract that seeks to infringe on my abi…
There are places for noncompetes. And that is only when you are dealing with very, very high compensation. If you are paying someone enough money that they could live on for the rest of their life comfortably, then you can reasonably expect them to sign a non-compete. But don't have the gall to expect someone to sign a non-compete for a market wage.
You couldn't reasonably expect me as VP of a specific type of eCommerce company to not jump ship and go be the VP of a different type of eCommerce company.
For example: Would it be fair to prevent the CTO/CIO of Google jumping ship and going to be CTO/CIO of for argument's sake Facebook?
Both of these companies are technology companies in the advertising space, both have hugely different approaches and business models for their revenue streams.
Given the language of some of the non-compete clauses I routinely scrub out of contracts, a VP would be expected to sign away their right to be able to leave and still find a meaningful job in their field while there being little, if any, risk of damage to Google by this switch - I mean, aside from having to replace their CTO/CIO.
Would it be fair for me to jump ship from say Bluejeans knowing all their trade secrets that give them their edge in their specific market and running off to Skype and taking all that knowledge and putting up a product that directly takes business from Bluejeans? Well, probably not. I would say a non-compete for companies that could be considered direct competitors is absolutely fair.
Disclaimer: I picked arbitrary company names out of the air, I'm not meaning to insinuate these companies have any such language in their contracts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All other things being equal, businesses will hire the candidate that they can potentially abuse before the one that may righteously push back. So if you are one who would negotiate the terms of a non-compete, you will not even get the opportunity until all those who will just blindly sign it have been given the chance to do so. The smart-ass part is signaling that you're less-abusable before the decision is made on…
The main contract may have a clause it's only valid, if you also sign the NCA and NSA agreements. At least mine had.
This is why you show contracts to lawyers before signing. You have to avoid unnecessary warranties, contingent agreements, hidden addendums, and other traps for the unwary. The contract should be the whole agreement, and ideally should also say that it is the whole agreement.
Just cross that clause out with your pen, and if questioned, say that you haven't seen the documents they were trying to incorporate by reference. If they are contract terms, they can appear as clauses in the contract, and you should be able to negotiate reasonable compensation for them.
Few companies have ever tried such trickery with me, but then again they have operated almost entirely without lengthy contracts--basically, just starting date, starting rate of pay, and the "at will" clause. Those that did push documents at me early enough got to see my editing pen. But my smartass resistance to their dubious documents never got me to an offer or a real negotiation, either.
I am especially fond of crossing out the part of a background check clause that allows them to keep the 3rd-party report secret from me, while also sharing it with any other parties they please. Ordinarily, I'd just walk out, but I figure that crossing that part out puts the ball back in their court.
One of the most insidious portions of non-competes IMO is that they are often non-enforceable. Depending on how wide or restricted the target of the non-compete is it can be ruled invalid. A lot of the more questioning people have probably discovered this but consider that there are probably janitors laid off by amazon who read their non-competes as the word of law and end up suffering hardships because of it. Also,…
From the perspective of any normal employee, "non-enforceable" doesn't matter. That I can eventually win in court doesn't matter if I can't afford the time, money, and stress to get that ruling. Exactly the goal, I'm sure, of the people writing up these agreements.
Skip the usual conferences for a year or two, fail to update linked-in in any meaningful way. Keep your mouth closed, and it becomes really hard for a company to toss cease and desist letters if they aren't even sure where your working. Going dark may not be a perfect defense, but lack of evidence makes it a lot harder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm actually an engineer :-) I used "smartass" because it's a move that superficially seems clever, but is actually completely futile when you look at the broad picture - as my comment shows. I don't know if us engineers have "low social status", but we certainly don't have as much negotiating power as some of us may fancy, certainly not against a huge mega-corporation.
All other things being equal, businesses will hire the candidate that they can potentially abuse before the one that may righteously push back. So if you are one who would negotiate the terms of a non-compete, you will not even get the opportunity until all those who will just blindly sign it have been given the chance to do so. The smart-ass part is signaling that you're less-abusable before the decision is made on…
I did exactly that at a smallish company ~20 years ago. It actually worked, and caused quite a ruckus a few years later when they discovered it. At that point they didn't really have any leverage because I wasn't working for them.
I seriously doubt this would work anywhere that isn't 30-80 employees. Small enough to not have an completely automated HR system, but large enough for things to slip through the cracks.
Sure, they didn't have a traditional non-compete as such, but they had layers of code of conducts and the like which basically made it a firing offense to do anything that wasn't effectively invisible. I turned them down for a number of reasons. But the general "your our slave, and you will suffer and regret doing anything outside of work" sure didn't help much. The idea that I might have to take down my github account, or fill out piles of paperwork to continue helping a non-profit I am involved in was just too much (combined with the fact that basically nothing was negotiable other than RSU's).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what, I’m only expected to bring 40% of my abilities to my next job? That makes mathematical sense, but it’s impossible in practice. It would be like trying to use 40% of your arms. If an honest engineer sees a problem which is exactly the same as one she solved at a previous company, and it is still the best solution, she will solve it in the same way. This has nothing to do with company secrets, it’s basic trade…
You're expected to do your best at your next job—but because it's not the most appropriate job for you, you're actual performance is probably some percentage less than what it could be elsewhere. This can in turn be an opportunity to diversify your overall skillset. (I was of course being a bit facetious with the 40% metric—real life isn't quite so simple—but saying the noncompete should have 100% compensation is sil…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most non-competes are usually imposed on very specialized professions like market analysts and accountants at global firms for example. If you're barred from working for another financial firm for 2 years, what are you going to do? I'm surprised to see such a narrow view about this issue on this forum.
I'm surprised to see such a narrow view about this issue on this forum. This forum oddly has some anti-labor sentiment. It is seen in this thread and also in threads related to unions, where the tone is quite obviously anti-union.
Me, I'm very anti-union in that I never want to be part of one, but OTOH, I fully support their right to exist as simply the collective extension to the individual members' right to bargain.
I've had non competes at my last 3 jobs (all in web hosting) The first, a darling "startup" adored by investors and customers alike sued me twice, sent a process server to my door at 6am on a saturday and tried to call me in for a deposition the afternoon of Christmas eve. They regularly win company culture awards and receive undeserved praise for being a place people can grow. I had a chance to grow from IC to VP an…
But how companies enforce them is the real culprit. This is a failure of our legal system. You can challenge a non compete in court and, depending on a few factors most heavily weighted towards if you can afford a good lawyer, you have a real shot at a win. However, this means you and only you are free from the shackles of this non compete. Other people who signed a contract with this same exact illegal clause in it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The German dev gets paid 25% of the US dev salary though.
+ pension + healthcare + mandatory 20 vacation days + max. 48h workweeks + mandatory 30 days notice period + better social security net and i dont need a gofundme page in case someone in my family gets cancer ...