They are valid in every state (and in many cases codified) except CA, OK & ND; however the restrictions, standards and exemptions vary by state.
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....
Timberwolf, post: 376121, member: 10599 wrote: 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.
There are "outs".....
"Commonly, when an employer elects to enforce a non-compete agreement, an employee will defend not only on the ground that he does not pose a serious competitive risk, but that the employee should be relieved of his non-compete obligations due to offending conduct by the employer or to some technical failure of the agreement."
It worked for me way back in 1987. B-)
FL/GA PLS., post: 376363, member: 379 wrote: There are "outs".....
"Commonly, when an employer elects to enforce a non-compete agreement, an employee will defend not only on the ground that he does not pose a serious competitive risk, but that the employee should be relieved of his non-compete obligations due to offending conduct by the employer or to some technical failure of the agreement."
It worked for me way back in 1987. B-)
I am glad you were successful.
what did your defense cost you? both in money and time...
and, what state was it?
[USER=60]@Peter Ehlert[/USER]
Thanks
$0.00, Too many to remember (does worrying count?)
FL
I did agree to "keep my mouth shut" (my terminology), about the whole thing, and have upheld that agreement. B-)
I signed one when I sold a firm in which I was a co-owner, but only because I was adequately compensated for the sale and had a guarantee of employment with them or a cash buy-out for the life of the non-compete agreement. That seemed fair.
Honor You Word (and contracts)
🙂 I agreed to "keep my mouth shut" once on another issue, but there was also an agreed time limit... any day now you all will hear about that one (maybe)
As with most things, I wouldn't have a problem with anything reasonable. I've seen instances where people signed and honored no-competes when selling a business, it was one of the terms of the sale. The a-holes I mentioned in a prior post wanted me to sign something that would have effectively barred me from taking a better job in the profession - which, considering how crappy their offer was, is probably a common occurrence.
Worked for a guy in the mid '90's that forced these on his party chiefs. Sign it or leave was his words.
Being young and stupid (and broke), I doubled my wage in one day (by signing). He cut my hours and renigged on a promised performance bonus (unwritten of course) so after three weeks, I left.
The guy told me he "owned me now & would pinch my pocket book" if I went to work locally. That night his competitor called and said he would pay the legal fees if I were sued. I went to work there the next day.
My new employer did exactly what he said he would and we won the case and the appeal.
Sad thing is, the prick that sued us is still growing a succesfull business that he has little to do with. He rubber stamps whatever his underlings put in front of him. Terrible person and worse surveyor still raking it in.
Do these non compete contracts state what the penalty is for breaching the contract, say $10,000? Or is it just words "... you agree not to ..." with no stated penalty - the only ones I have seen are just words, because I assume they would only be enforced if the breach occurred while still employed and the penalty then was termination (of employment).
If asked to sign one, would it be reasonable to ask for compensation in the form of a cash payout to cover the time you must site at home and do nothing while the time clause runs out ?
I mean if they want you to site at home and do nothing for 6 months, surely they must compensate you for that obligation ?
If they were prepared to pay me my going renumeration to site at home for 6 months, I would probably sign it, if not, then no ways.
