Crazy Non-Compete Contracts?

JL-b8 asks: "I've just encountered a (from what I know) strange occurrence. A group of friends who work for a small web design firm are being forced to sign a non-compete agreement with a clause that prohibits the employee from working with a competing company for 12 months, after the date of their leaving. The owners claim it's a standardly practiced clause, but I don't see how the hell a web developer/designer is supposed to find work in a city for a year, without moving to a completely different city. I'd like more input as to how this weighs in to the rest of the companies out there. Is this a common thing? If you've signed something like this, and had to switch jobs, how did it affect you?"

it depends.

[User 956]

I'd like more input as to how this weighs in to the rest of the companies out there. Is this a common thing?

It's probably pretty much bullshit, as non-competes are usually targeted at specific knowledge jobs (CTO, CEO, etc), not skill jobs (web designer/developer). Basically, it comes down to compensation for that commitment. If the firm's paying six and a half figures, go for it. If they're paying market rate, tell them to knob off: There are plenty of other firms that don't require a non-compete for a regular web developer/designer position.

Too common

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I have found such non-competes very common, and I've signed a few of them myself. The scope of the agreement is generally proscribed by the state in which it's signed: length of time after employment that other employment is barred, definition of the region, how close the work can be. etc. A 12 month period is a pretty common period. It's never stopped me from looking for work, though, as the burden on them is to prove that I've broken it, and if I don't return their calls, what will they do? Get employment records from my now-current employer? For real advice, consult a lawyer.

Strange for SW, not for others

[Meostro]

I've seen non-competes like this in things like news media, but not often in software development. If someone is a news anchor at station A, when they switch over to station B they generally get a 6-month to 1-year paid "vacation" so the marketing that station A did to promote this person to their viewers would not give an advantage to station B.

Non-competes should only be accepted for this sort of reason, where some person working within the same industry for another company would have either proprietary knowledge or influence not due to their skill, but only to their association with a company. If I'm working as a cashier for -insert megalomaniacal chain store here- then there isn't really any possibility of having such knowledge or influence. If instead I'm working in their procurement department and negotiating deals with (and cultivating relationships with) outside vendors, it makes sense for the company to have a non-compete clause. If I weren't working for them, I wouldn't have had the contact with those vendors, it is only due to my work with the company that I would be as successful at another company.

Whether or not you accept the clause, however, is up to you. Do the benefits of working for this company outweigh the problems that a non-compete may cause you?

My employeer tried that

[Anonymous Coward]

My employeer wanted me to sign that, I refused. They told me that 'Never would use that against me'. I told them 'Then why is it in the papers I have to sign?'. I still refused to sign it. So long time ago, dont realy remeber what happened. I think they change it anyhow. Not long down the road I switched to an other company cause I was sick off things like that. Respect your workforce and you will gain respet from your workforce, and the other way around... By the way, this was a webcompany.

Ask them to pay for it

[khchung]

Add a clause in the agreement that said the company will pay your full salary for the duration of the non-compete agreement, or until you landed another job, whichever is earlier. Tell them that is also "a standard clause for non-compete agreements".

If what you know is so important that the company will suffer if you work for a competitor, it makes sense for the company to pay you for it. That's fair.

Give and take

[deblau]

If the company wants them to do something (i.e., use their knowledge and time), they have to pay for it. Likewise, if the company wants them not to do something (i.e., work for someone else), they should have to pay for it. I'd say, if you don't want me to work for someone else, give me a severance package that covers the exclusion period. For instance, ask for 6 months severance for a 12 month exclusion (half pay). Or argue that the non-compete is unreasonable. Or work for someone else.

Just go to work for a California company

[dr2chase]

Even if you don't live in CA, work for a CA company, they are less likely to bother you with this crap since it is apparently (IANAL) unenforceable in CA. California also serves as a useful example of the economic uselessness of such agreements; if they were so necessary, their lack would stifle investment and industry.

I've turned down a job because we could not reach agreement over a non-compete clause; it was very broad, and unreasonable-looking, and they insisted on the annoying language. I took this as a sign that they might make trouble if I ever did want to leave (and if I have to hire a lawyer to assert my rights, that's trouble, even if I eventually win). I've signed others that were not so insane, but I generally hate them, and wish that other states would follow California's lead.

Re:Pretty standard

[cyclop]

In fact I can't understand how can US workers comply and go away with such a draconian practice like a "non compete" clause. What do they think you are supposed to do for a year? Washing cars?

I can understand not copying your previous employer IP property to paste it in your new workplace. But if, for example, I'm a software engineer that worked on PageRank at Google, I understand not re-implementing PageRank at my new workplace, but why should I stop working in search engine technology? Why should I restart from (almost) scratch, doing something I'm not expert in, having probably lesser opportunities and wages, etc.?

What I find more amazing is the "oh well it's pretty standard" attitude. Do you really think such clauses are fair clauses?

Re:Pretty standard

[Ihlosi]

that can't adapt

Of course I could adapt, but why should I ? Adapting to a different job where my "special" expertise is worthless generally means making less money.

Re:Oh, this reminds me of the ol' Freedom Debate..

[Meccanica]

Now, is that really freedom, or just really advanced serfdom?

Any sufficiently advanced serfdom is indistinguishable from freedom.

-1 Stupid Meme

Re:Pretty standard

[psykocrime]

If you don't like the non-compete, don't take the job. Nobody is holding a gun to your head, presumably.

OR, as an alternative, take the job, but factor the crazy non-compete into the compensation negotiations. Tell them "What you're
trying to do goes beyond simply hiring me as an employee for X duration. In return for the extra consideration I'll be granting
you, I expect commensurate consideration." If you can't reach an agreement that both sides find equitable, don't take the job.