Curious as to how many of you have signed a non compete clause to a contract for your employer, or require your employees to sign one. As a SI I have been asked to sign two in job searches. Curious as to how y'all feel about these contracts.
I won't sign something that restricts me from feeding my family. What if they turn out to be aholes? Now your stuck.
On the same token I wouldn't ask someone to sign that for me.
Adam, post: 376067, member: 8900 wrote: I won't sign something that restricts me from feeding my family. What if they turn out to be aholes? Now your stuck.
I won't sign one either, just curious how common they are.
I've heard they are extremely hard to enforce even if signed.
I could understand it maybe if it was some sort of apprenticeship program. Still would be hard to sign.
It would cost mucho deniro to get me to sign one of those things.
Extremely unethical to attempt to force such a thing on another professional (or professional to be).
One was included in a package of HR forms once, I drew a line across it and did not comment or sign sign. In hindsight I should have just walked out the door that very minute. An indicator of the management style in the front office... It was a hell hole.
First; read the fine print. And a good rule of thumb is never enter into a contractual agreement unless you may profit from the deal. Plain and simple. Short and sweet.
Why would you sign something that may ultimately limit you?
It makes no sense for a SIT position. In some cases for a PLS it would be reasonable if for a limited time after leaving and for a limited distance, to keep them from taking away clients.
It makes more sense for businesses with process trade secrets or proprietary designs.
Bill93, post: 376089, member: 87 wrote: ... for a PLS it would be reasonable if for a limited time after leaving and for a limited distance....
it sounds like the standard 10/90 would be suitable (10 feet or 90 seconds, whichever comes first) 😉
seriously, if anybody is in a position to leave and take significant business with them they should be cultivated. Contractual control attempts are more likely to push them out the door. In my case it backfired
I had to sign one about two years ago in order to keep my job. I held out until the last minute as my personal form of protest. Ours is for one year after my termination of employment. I work for a minority contractor and we do a lot of work for the state. Doesn't really make any sense to me, I am a lowly party chief, and it's not like we have reinvented the survey procedures for SHA data collection. I also was told the same thing that Rich stated, very hard to enforce. It really doesn't matter to me. When I am done here I am going to try and do some lay-out work. I'm tired of being a topo monkey...
I've had people say that they could not go to work for me because of a "non-compete agreement" they had signed before.
The conditions usually limited them to 50 miles from the office. That generally covers any local competition.
Others said that it did not matter to them, they just did not want to be sued, which was a definite conclusion. With being hit with the cost of any attorney, nobody wanted that, so they complied out of fear rather than by law. The local end of the legal mentality around here would more than likely have gone against state law as they usually do.
Some people just can't feed their egos enough.
0.02
Many years ago, when I was building cabinets in Mountain Pine, AR, my employer approached me with a "sign this no-compete contract or be fired". As I had a young family depending upon me and my income, I signed it. It was a mistake, and I knew it, but they had me over a barrel. Long story short, they were horrible people, and if I had it to do over, I would figure something else out.
The only time I ever saw it enforced, was when one of the main department heads went out on his own and directly targeted that company's big clients. Even then, he settled out of court out of fear of a lawsuit being something he couldn't afford. As Jeff Lucas says: you can get as much justice as you can afford.
My advice as a guy with more life experience now, is do not sign that. Not only does it limit you and cause you undue stress, but any company who would ask/force you to sign one, isn't worth working for.
They are valid in every state (and in many cases codified) except CA, OK & ND; however the restrictions, standards and exemptions vary by state.
http://www.beckreedriden.com/50-state-noncompete-chart/&apos ;">Noncompete Laws For All 50 States
I've signed them; but for surveyors, in most cases, they don't seem to make business sense to me. Unless the person has an equity stake in the firm, is a regional or office manager, or his/her job involves a substantial amount of business development all they seem to succeed in doing is create bad will between the employee and employer.
Jirwin, post: 376115, member: 10943 wrote: Doesn't really make any sense to me, I am a lowly party chief, and it's not like we have reinvented the survey procedures for SHA data collection
This is the one exception I can think of where it makes sense for technical staff. When DOT and municipal on-call survey contracts come up for renewal, the firms that are interested submit responses to a request for qualifications that include the resumes of field staff. Having field and office technicians that are experienced in working with the agency standards are the only way to get shortlisted for these contracts. That's why it seems that the same firms get these contracts over and over, and why when work slows down and firms that do a lot of land development work submit RFQ's for these types of contracts, they are rarely successful (at least around these here parts).
Check out AR State Law, a contract may not be enforceable.
Interestingly in 2011 a case made it to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Non-compete contracts in Oklahoma are essentially null and void; unenforceable.
"Title 15 O.S.2001 å¤ 219A is the LegislatureÛªs pronouncement on OklahomaÛªs public policy regarding covenants not to compete. It provides that where an employee has executed a covenant not to compete with an employer, the employee ÛÏshall be permitted to engage in the same business as that conducted by the former employer or in a similar business as that conducted by the former employer as long as the former employee does not directly solicit the sale of goods, services or a combination of goods and services from the established customers of the former employer.Û The statute goes on to provide that any provision in a contract between an employer and an employee in conflict with the provisions of the section ÛÏshall be void and unenforceable.
å¦ 21 Subsection A utilizes the mandatory term, ÛÏshall,Ûin association with the employeeÛªs right to engage in the same or similar business as that of the employer while subsection B provides that ÛÏanyÛ provision in a contract between the employer and employee conflicting with those terms ÛÏshall be void and unenforceable.Û The term ÛÏanyÛ is all-embracing and means nothing less than ÛÏeveryÛ and ÛÏall.ÛThe plain, clear, unmistakable, unambiguous, and unequivocal language of 15 O.S.2001 å¤ 219A prohibits employers from binding employees to agreements which bar their ability to find gainful employment in the same business or industry as that of the employer. The only exception allowed by the statutory provision is that the employee may be barred from soliciting goods or services from the employerÛªs established customers."
Please note the hyperbole.
I let it be known in the interview that I am a Professional and not a bond servant. Treat me honest and fair and I will do the same. I might be willing to do it for specific non governmental key clients that the employer already has with whom I do not already have a relationship. Most places that I have worked, I brought Clients with me and took them when I left.
I was coerced into signing one when I was young and dumb and was subsequently sued when I changed jobs; fortunately my new employer had deep pockets and stood up for me. I believe we would have won in the end but it was settled out of court, as is so often the case; it's easier and ultimately cheaper to settle even when you're in the right.
Non-competes are largely unenforceable in a right to work state unless they're very specific or involve non-disclosure agreements.
I was asked to sign one three years ago as a condition of employment by a large equipment vendor that I'm sure everyone hear has at least heard of; I told them where they could stick it.
Run away. The only company that ever asked me to sign one, ended up to be a joke of a job....