191–200 of 218 posts
Non competes shouldn't last longer than your job. I once had to sign a year long non compete for a three month internship. Noncompetes should be void if you are fired. They should also only apply to salaried employees, or employees at a certain wage level. It is disgusting that minimum wage employees have to sign noncompetes
Serious question - How do the previous employers find out when an employee breaches a non-compete agreement? Is it usually word of mouth that makes it's way to HR/legal? or is it registered through someone's SSN? Because I know LinkedIn does a pretty good job at hiding from your current employer that you're looking for a job. What's to stop them from hiding your current employer to your previous employer?
I think usually because the employee opens his fat mouth is why.
A couple of suggestions for things you can tell them:
* you want to travel the world for a year and find yourself. * you're going to start your own company. Maybe even register at the chamber of commerce and give them your card in case they want to hire you. * you need to take care of a family member. * you're burned out by this work and are going to work in retail or something. * you've got the opportunity to turn your hobby into your work. * you're going to move out of state/out of the country. * it's none of their business. (Not a lie! But if they suck, it might make them suspicious and do some research.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> something silly 1-3 months mutual notice period is common practice in many countries. In France 3 months is standard.
France also makes it very hard to fire a worker, which means hiring carries more risk. That then leads to one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the Eurozone of around 20%. The US unemployment rates, both youth and overall, are about half of France rates. Sticky job movement causes friction in both directions, like most sticky economic variables.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With apologies to Casablanca , I'm shocked—shocked!—to find the US legal culture to favor the freedom of corporations over the freedom of people.
Which part of "this corporation is favored over all other corporations" leads you to the "favor[s] the freedom of corporations" idea?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My French contract had 2 months notice and a non compete option for the employer, where they had the option to pay me 75% of the salary for 2 years to enforce the non compete. That kind of non competes I don’t mind.
Yeah I ain't agreeing to take a 2 year hole in my employment.
Another possible explanation: "I took a two-year sabbatical to work on my own projects and improve my skills".
I run a digital agency and employ about 65 people who make more than $150k (product managers and developers, mostly). We stopped putting non competes into our employment contracts awhile ago, mainly because they’re too expensive to enforce. What we do instead is require all of our clients to sign headhunter fee agreements that entitle us to a fee (as much as 100% of salary) if they hire our staff. Much easier to enfo…
Did you go back and strike the non-competes already signed, too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which part of "this corporation is favored over all other corporations" leads you to the "favor[s] the freedom of corporations" idea?
Uh, which individual corporation is favored here? It's not like only some corporations are allowed to have non-compete clauses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
France also makes it very hard to fire a worker, which means hiring carries more risk. That then leads to one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the Eurozone of around 20%. The US unemployment rates, both youth and overall, are about half of France rates. Sticky job movement causes friction in both directions, like most sticky economic variables.
Germany also has strong labor laws and has a youth unemployment rate of about 7.7% with the lowest overall unemployment rate in the EU and second to lowest in the world. Your argument is not valid.
Also, Germany laws are not France laws; comparing them is not valid.
Here [1] is a well cited paper showing from theory and empirically that gains in labor do result in unemployment. From the abstract: "Tight hiring and firing rules and military conscription most clearly seem to have adverse effects".
Here's [2] a slightly older one addressing France and Germany in particular, showing what I claimed. France is not Germany; your comparison is invalid.
Here's [3] another heavily cited, more recent paper, that pulls France out in particular. From the abstract: "Heavier regulation of labor is associated with lower labor force participation and higher unemployment, especially of the young."
There's plenty more papers with the same results. Use Google scholar to find them.
You can dislike the results, but ignoring the result and claiming they are not real simply hurts more people through ignoring evidence, thereby avoiding correct solutions to the problems.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014759670...
[2] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.11.3.37
[3] https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/119/4/1339/185...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "open source contributions" and "community work" have to do with non-compete clauses? Non-competes prevent you from working for your employer's commercial competitors. I.E. if you leave Uber, you can't go work for Lyft. Also, it's naive to assume you can just "sell" an employer on a contractual change that goes against their goals. Saying "I'm a software engineer, and I plan to continue being a software eng…
> It's not about convincing anyone, it's about power and who has it. Yes, you have to be good at your job and hard to replace before you make demands. That part should be obvious. At any rate, I've had plenty of success striking all non-compete agreements before starting my own business permanently. Just be good enough and hard to replace.
> Yes, you have to be good at your job and hard to replace before you make demands.
You are required to sign a non-compete before accepting the job. You cannot be "hard to replace" because you haven't started that job yet.
They won't even "replace" you - they just won't hire you!
> At any rate, I've had plenty of success striking all non-compete agreements
As I mentioned elsewhere, this is possible if you are a very strong senior candidate negotiating with relatively small employers who are desperate to hire you and don't have many alternative candidates.
At larger corporations, I've been told straight up that the non-competes are policy and won't be waived for anyone.
If you check the history of non-compete lawsuits, you'll find some very senior employees being sued, so this statements seem true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is terrible advice. Signing a contract you then willfully violate may cost you significant time and money, and if I found out this is how you operate, I’d never hire you. I suspect many other employers wouldn’t either. Simply don’t sign such a contract.
found out this is how you operate, I’d never hire you. You wouldn't find out until I found a new job someplace else, right? And at that point, why would I lose sleep over how incensed you supposedly would be, here, hypothetically? Worked great for my ex boss. What do you recommend, a person stays unemployed forever because they refuse to sign these unprincipled agreements? Did you read the Bloomberg article? We're no…
I'm not incensed; I'm pointing out this attitude and commentary is likely a negative to your getting hired if employers discover it.
>You wouldn't find out until I found a new job someplace else, right?
Unless some previous employer mentioned it, or a google or background found it (or this comment).
It's pretty common to run all potential hires through a background check service, especially as the value of the hire increases. I know places I've done hiring has not hired people based on their past discoverable behavior.