Should be a requirement that, to be enforceable, a non-compete must pay the agreeing employee his salary for the duration of the agreement.
The case for banning non-competes
181–190 of 338 posts
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#182Re: The case for banning non-competes
#183There are two kinds of non-competes, and both have problems. First, there's the really nasty ones saying "If you ever work here, you can't work for any competitor for X years", and they're clearly abusing of employees, labor, etc. I hope there is a straight up ban on that. The second kind is "You can't compete with us while you work here". And that is a much more complex beast. Obviously, if I work as a developer mak…
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#184There are two kinds of non-competes, and both have problems. First, there's the really nasty ones saying "If you ever work here, you can't work for any competitor for X years", and they're clearly abusing of employees, labor, etc. I hope there is a straight up ban on that. The second kind is "You can't compete with us while you work here". And that is a much more complex beast. Obviously, if I work as a developer mak…
In my state, by law the contract can't cause 'undue difficulties'. You could prob make the case that were I to leave, it prevents me from working in my industry - I'd call that a good enough argument to go before a judge with, esp in a blue state.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#185Since there is no way for me company to know where I am going, it may mean 70% of salary for free, if I go to a non competitor.
It is rarely enforced, though.
The second non compete (while working at a company) is very muddy waters though.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#186Should be a requirement that, to be enforceable, a non-compete must pay the agreeing employee his salary for the duration of the agreement.
Some people might think that was a good deal to travel the world but not everyone. So you're at the peak of your career and you need to take a couple years off at significantly lower total comp (because no bonus/equity).
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problematically though, in most of the US ridiculously broad NCCs are enforceable. The only place where you're safe is California, where the only way for an NCC to stick is related to business (co)-ownership (selling the business, dissolving a partnership, or dissolving an LLC). Out-of-state NCCs are also un-enforceable in California.
You made a very general statement! They are enforceable because usually the violator is doing something ridiculously broad. Like going to work for McDonalds R&D after leaving Burger King as the VP of product design. My anecdotal experience: I once worked for a major bank and someone who left another major bank held a meeting with developers of a next-gen platform where he basically explained, in explicit detail, his…
This is what non-disclosure agreements are for. A non-compete would basically have prevented him from getting this new job.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#188Re: The case for banning non-competes
#189I do have some mixed feelings about them the higher you go in the company hierarchy.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#190My state has severely limited non-compete agreements to the point that they’re only narrowly enforceable, if at all. That didn’t stop one of my previous employers from using non-compete scare tactics against employees. Many of us left in a large exodus when benefits and bonuses were cut and management made a number of other bad decisions. The company responded by sending remaining employees an e-mail with a list of c…
They didn't have to win the lawsuit. The competitor that the employee went to fired the employee after they started. Presumably, it was because they didn't want any problems from the employee's previous employer, or just didn't want the headache at all.