Non-Competes 8

[evildopey]

In viewing my responses on my previous thread, I would like to know where engineers stand as far as non-compete clauses go?

Are they good because they keep the greedy in line?

Are they bad because they hinder engineers from the persuit of happiness?

All thoughts and opinions are welcome.

 

[ash9144]

Not sure what context you are referring to but I've switched jobs a few times and find the non compete is going to depend on the company, state, and business. In TX they are basically useless and you can join any company you want. May be some head aches later depending on the company but overall no big problem.

 

[csd72]

I would never sign one.

There is no such thing as a job for life these days and I dont want to have to leave town to change my job.

 

[TheTick]

In most states and provinces in North America, non-competes for salaried engineers are not enforceable. Many precedents already set, so don't sweat it. Sign it, it's no good anyhow. No one can stop you from taking your next job.

The only time it may come into force is if you start a business that competes directly with your former employer.

Honesty may be the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

-SolidWorks API VB programming help

 

[ctopher]

Tick is correct. The paper they want you to sign is per state laws anyway. I never understood why companies want you to sing something that already exist anyway. My last company threatened us with it. Several good employees quit because of it. You don't have to sign it.

Chris
SolidWorks 08 0.0/PDMWorks 08
AutoCAD 06
ctopher's home (updated 10-07-07)
ctopher's blog

 

[tygerdawg]

roger that on csd72 & Tick. Only an HR guy thinks those things work. I know NOW to ask in the interview process if I will be asked to sign one. If yes, then my job description must be a multipage document with excruciating detail, and skewed heavily in my favor.

TygerDawg
Blue Technik LLC
Advanced Robotics & Automation Engineering

http://www.bluetechnik.com

 

[zuccus]

I negotiated mine where they had to specifically list their companies competitors that they would not want me to go work for. I also gave them the ability to ammend it with my signature so in case some start-up started competeing with us. This made them feel like they had the power.

Turns out it was about 3 companies I had never even heard of so it was no big deal.

Zuccus.

 

[TenPenny]

I would be willing to sign one, as long as they signed one that they would never hire anybody to do my job if I ever left.

 

[swivel63]

i'd never sign one.

 

[Ashereng]

Non-competes are not enforeced upon individuals by the courts in the US.

Non-competes are often enforced upone owners/partners/pricipals by the courts in the US.

For example, you own an engineering consultancy company. The buyers want to buy your company, and you sell. The contract will most likely have a provision that you don't go down the street and start another one to compete against them. In the contract, they may also limit where you can not start up another company (say not only the town, but the county), or a fixed duration within which you can not start up a company (say you have to wait at least 3 years). This in essence is a condition of the sale. This, the courts usually enforce.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[TenPenny]

Non competes when you sell a business are logical, and make sense.

I think that the actual goal that firms are trying to accomplish with non-competes is that they want to make sure that employees don't take corporate information (ie, customer lists, contacts, pricing info, etc) to a competitor. When I left one place to go to a competitor, I was asked to sign a document to this effect, and my friend (who happens to be a lawyer), explained that this concept is pretty much assumed under the law, ie, that customer and pricing data is your employer's property, and you cannot use this confidential info to your own gain.

 

[TheTick]

What TenPenny said...

It's called "fiduciary duty". When one holds a position of employment, the employee has responsibilities that are legally implicit in having that position. The employee is trusted with sensitive information, and the law recognizes the keeping of that trust as part of an employee's lawful duty to his employer.

 

[Sid7]

Thats why we sign the Confidentiality Agreement to protect the sensitive information and such stuff.

But it would be largely unfair to have a condition on a employee as this. This cuts the competition in salary. I understand this approach would have worked in the past but in todays world I dont think such a system would work.

In todays global market I dont think it would be practical for companies themselves. global companies need global resources to excel their performance and gain more profits. Now this non-competes may only create problem than solving.

Siddharth
These are my personal views/opinions and not of my employer's.

 

[KENAT]

Tick and others pretty much cover my understanding of it.

I had to sign one for my current place.

However they are pretty much meaningless, we've had several high profile tech guys leave and join competitors in the last 2 years and I haven't heard of any legal efforts to stop it.

However, we are involved in legal proceedings to protect patents with a company formed by former employees (possibly before they even had non competes here).

Before I joined one lead guy who'd worked for the company before it was acquired by the current corporation was fired for refusing to sign a non compete.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[zdas04]

This is a very topical discussion for me. I'm negotiating a contract with a new client tonight. He represents a manufacturer and wants me to sign a master service agreement with a non-compete clause (it is so tight that if I sign it, this $3000 job will preclude my doing any work for any of my clients for the next three years). I laughed at them. They agreed with me and said it had been removed, but they were just teasing since it is still in the document. I closed negotiations with "you need me more than I need you, if you remove the clause I'll review the rest, otherwise have a nice life". I wouldn't sign one of those things unless there was enough money on the table to allow me to sit on my butt for the duration, and I probably wouldn't sign it even then.

David

 

[evildopey]

I signed mine because if I didn't, I couldn't work for them. Just being out of school, and looking for a job for 6 months, I jumped at the employment opportunity to better my situation (beggars can't be choosers). Now I'm in a confusing position. Was my hand forced? I needed a job and couldn't find one anywhere but where I work, and it takes a long time (6 months) to find a job (6 months is a long time without income). This is a case where a company is enforcing an individual salaried employee. How valid is this non-compete contract? Should I "lawyer up" and test its validity? What do labor laws say about this? (keep in mind that this is in the US)

evil

 

[GregLocock]

Well, you could try reading the answers you've /already had/ in this thread:

In TX they are basically useless and you can join any company you want.

In most states and provinces in North America, non-competes for salaried engineers are not enforceable. Many precedents already set, so don't sweat it. Sign it, it's no good anyhow. No one can stop you from taking your next job.

Non-competes are not enforeced upon individuals by the courts in the US.

I had to sign one for my current place. However they are pretty much meaningless,


Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[Jordonlaw]

I was asked to sign one for a job in the UK. They listed some companies I explicitly couldn't work for but also had some generic wording in there that covered other companies as well. I spoke to my solicitor who said it was unenforcable in English and Scottish law.

For my current job I didn't sign my contract as it basically said I couldn't work for anyone without permission being granted first. When I pointed out this would include mowing my neighbours grass in return for any reward (cup of coffee etc) they agreed it was silly and would correct it. Three years on and I still haven't signed the contract.

I remember in another thread here that people often just crossed out the bits of contracts they didn't like, initial the changes and then signed the document.

 

[bencraddock]

It seems like most people on this thread are in agreement that it's no big deal to ignore a non-compete that has been signed. Maybe this post belongs in the "Ethics" forum, but does anyone see any ethical problems with breaking a contract that was signed? Maybe it can't be enforced by the legal system, but as a matter of professional ethics, shouldn't the engineer keep his word in this matter?

I've never been presented with a non-compete contract so maybe I don't know enough to discuss this intelligently, but the question did enter my mind...

Thanks,
Ben

 

[TheTick]

The basis of the "unenforceability" of non-competes is that by simply changing jobs to a competing company, you are not personally going into competition with your old employer. You are simply plying your trade with a new customer (yes, employers are employees' customers in that sense).

Fairly solid ethical ground, tested many times.