Went in for a job interview for a computer tech position. Interviewer was nice. Company seemed like a nice place to work. Benefits sounded great. Which is to say I don’t ‘really’ know anything about the company.
The let me know up front that they have a non-compete clause. My knee jerk reaction was no, but I mentioned that I would need to see the wording first.
I know I am jumping the gun, seeing as I haven’t even been offered a position. I would like to know people’s opinion about such things as well as advice on certain wording to look out for.
My gut reaction is that I would not work for such a company. It offends me on principle. I find it un-American and uncapitalistic to try and restrict the work that a person can do after they have left a company.
Assuming it is a boilerplate agreement, it would probably prevent me from working in any other IT company that provided technical consulting. It would allow me to work for say an insurance company that needed an IT consultant.
Read the clause and review it with a lawyer. It is my understanding (I work in broadcasting, so these things float around) that they cannot prevent you from working for another company forever. It must be reasonable. So while the clause may prevent you from working for another IT company for six months, they can’t prevent you from joining another company after that. If the period of non-compete is excessive, it may not be enforceable.
I believe it’s done to protect proprietary information.
The one I turned down: “For a period of two years following termination with our company, you can’t work in the IT industry in the Twin Cities.” Seriously. The more accurate wording was something like, “you can’t get a job with any company that contracted with us, or any company that could have contracted with us.” So, since it was a general-services IT consulting company, I wouldn’t have been able to take a job as a consultant with any company that would … hire consultants… :dubious:
The one I’m currently working under: “If you leave our company, you can’t go back to the company we placed you with and take that exact job.”
In other words, if they’re trying to keep you from getting any job in the industry after leaving, that sucks. If they’re just trying to keep you from quitting, then taking the job they just placed you at for a big raise and benefits, that’s fair.
I too think non-compete agreements are bullshit. But I signed one. However, if I were to leave my company, I would have no problem going to a competing company and breaking the agreement because I doubt my boss would want to expend the money and energy to deal with it. And anyway, how would she even know that I went to a competitor? She probably wouldn’t, so I would take that chance.
My brother also had a non-compete and he broke it. His old company sent a threatening letter, but they never did anything about it, and he stayed at his new job with a competing company with no problem.
My question is, let’s say a company does sue you for breaking a non-compete agreement. What could happen to you? Could a judge force you to quit your new job? I mean, that just sounds crazy to me. Really, what could their recourse be?
I have nothing to add other than I worked for a company where one of the developers had to quit because of a non-compete agreement he signed with his previous company, and they were going after him. It was a mess. They guy had actually moved to take the position with our company.
From what I have been able to gleen online before posting this topic, they can get a court ordered injunction for the duration of the case. But like most laws they vary on a state basis. I thought it was bullshit too, which is why I posted. Not only can they prevent you from working in your field, but they can also prevent the income that would fund a legal challenge?
It wasn’t the government, it was a private company. It’s been a few years, but I believe that the previous company began legal action against the former employee. I don’t know what they would have been able to recover, had he NOT quit, all I know is that he could not afford to say “fuck it” and remain with our company. Again, it was a mess.
I’m a designer/illustrator/animator by trade and almost accepted a position that had a pretty horrible no-compete clause. If I quit or were fired, I couldn’t get another job with a multimedia company within 200 miles or for 2 years. Still, it seemed like a great company to work for and I probably would have done it, except that in addition to that clause, I couldn’t claim any work I did for them in a portfolio. Basically, it was like signing a contract saying I would work there the rest of my life. I didn’t want that.
Still, I do know people in the industry and people who have worked for them. Those that quit and joined the ranks at advertising agencies or something similar were taken to court, although ultimately allowed to keep their jobs after a long and annoying hassle. Those that left to do illustration work at non-multimedia oriented companies (say a newspaper or a design department of a large corporation) weren’t bothered.
Depends on the state, but in NY a non-compete agreement is not enforceable if it is too broad. For example “not allowed to work in the IT field for x months” probably won’t be enforced by the courts. What is enforceable is if you develop applications for a software company and then leave to go to a competitor to build the exact same type of software (say…leaving Google to develop search engines for Altavista. In a specific case like that, a case can be made for the company to protect it’s intellectual property for a reasonable amount of time (usually 2 years max).
For Joe Visual Basic Consultant who leaves Accenture to go work for BearingPoint, or IBM Business Services it probably is not enforceable. I have worked for a number of firms and they all make you sign those things and they never go after people when they leave (which they always do after a few years). The only time they might is in the case of a high-ranking manager, leaving to go to a client, or if there exists some kind of partnering relationship.
"The one I’m currently working under: “If you leave our company, you can’t go back to the company we placed you with and take that exact job.”
Typical for consulting or contracting firms. Basically what they don’t want is to be a staffing agency. Larger firms (like Accenture or the Big 4) don’t mind as much because there are always a thousand college grads looking to work there and they like having contacts at client firms. Smaller firms, however, it can cause problems when someone leaves. People do it though.
Basically the main purpose of a non-compete is to:
a) prevent you from taking intellectual property to a competitor
b) prevent you from using the company to develop your own intellectual property and then leaving to make money with in
c) using the company as a recruiting firm
Their enforcibility depends on the specifics of the agreement and the state they are enfoced in. As with any legal matter, check with a lawyer.
Depends on the state, but in NY a non-compete agreement is not enforceable if it is too broad. For example “not allowed to work in the IT field for x months” probably won’t be enforced by the courts. What is enforceable is if you develop applications for a software company and then leave to go to a competitor to build the exact same type of software (say…leaving Google to develop search engines for Altavista. In a specific case like that, a case can be made for the company to protect it’s intellectual property for a reasonable amount of time (usually 2 years max).
For Joe Visual Basic Consultant who leaves Accenture to go work for BearingPoint, or IBM Business Services it probably is not enforceable. I have worked for a number of firms and they all make you sign those things and they never go after people when they leave (which they always do after a few years). The only time they might is in the case of a high-ranking manager, leaving to go to a client, or if there exists some kind of partnering relationship.
"The one I’m currently working under: “If you leave our company, you can’t go back to the company we placed you with and take that exact job.”
Typical for consulting or contracting firms. Basically what they don’t want is to be a staffing agency. Larger firms (like Accenture or the Big 4) don’t mind as much because there are always a thousand college grads looking to work there and they like having contacts at client firms. Smaller firms, however, it can cause problems when someone leaves. People do it though.
Basically the main purpose of a non-compete is to:
a) prevent you from taking intellectual property to a competitor
b) prevent you from using the company to develop your own intellectual property and then leaving to make money with in
c) using the company as a recruiting firm
Their enforcibility depends on the specifics of the agreement and the state they are enfoced in. As with any legal matter, check with a lawyer.
