
Noncompete Clauses: Signing Away the Right to Get a New Job - mikeh1010
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/business/noncompete-clauses.html?_r=0
======
etjossem
Worth remembering, especially for those just entering the software field: by
the time a potential employer gives you an employment agreement to sign,
they've already decided they want you. At that point, it's on them to give you
a palatable offer. They may include a noncompete clause for one of two
reasons: 1) to prevent you from working somewhere else at the same time, which
can create all sorts of conflicts of interest, or 2) because it'll keep you
from looking for a new job, and they think you're too naive to argue.

Here's my suggestion. When you receive the document, read it and see if
there's a noncompete clause. If so, you're going to want to send a redlined
version back to them, changing the noncompete duration from "during and for 2
years following employment at the company" (or whatever they gave you) to "for
the duration of employment at the company." By doing so, you show your
willingness not to do any kind of work for a competitor while employed, while
very clearly pointing out that you do have the right to get a new job. It may
be important not to offend the person who wrote up the agreement and included
something so ridiculous, so the minor nature of your modification will allow
them to save face.

In the end, most employers won't bother to argue the second point, and the
ones that do are probably shadily taking advantage of you in other ways.

Additional note: in California and several other states, these clauses are not
legally enforceable anyway, and you should mention that when you give them the
"fixed" agreement.

~~~
mikeash
I've never been presented with one (and hope I never will) so this is
hypothetical, but I have a hard time imagining even doing that.

A company is paying me to work for them, they're not paying to own me. When
I'm off the clock, my time is my own, up to and including doing paid work for
anyone else I want.

I'd make an exception if they increased my pay accordingly. But considering
that they're asking for 4.2x more of my time than usual, they'd better be
paying me at least 4.2x a normal full-time salary.

I do have a little experience with making changes to contracts that the other
party doesn't want to change, and to that end I'd like to add two more things.
First, it's likely they'll use the phrase "standard contract" and say that it
just can't be changed. Second, if you've gotten that far, it's quite likely
they'll change your minds if you stick to your guns. It's tempting to cave in
when they say "sorry, we can't accept changes," but don't.

~~~
tensor
Frankly I find working for a direct competitor in your off hours to be highly
unethical and have no issues with employers trying to ban it in the contract.
You're no more entitled to do whatever you want than you are to be employed.
It's fair for you to want to work for direct competitors, and it's also fair
for employers not to hire you if this is your demand.

~~~
mikeash
What's wrong with it exactly? If I hired a flooring company to lay down some
hardwood, I'm not going to tell them "now, don't go doing flooring for my
competition for the duration of this job." What's the difference?

You're right that it's fair for employers not to hire me if this is my demand.
I never meant to imply otherwise. Employers can require all sorts of terrible
things. Our recourse is mostly to either negotiate or put up with it.

~~~
StavrosK
> What's the difference?

The difference is that you didn't spend lots of money researching a better
type of floor-laying and then have the flooring company come in to lay the
hardwood according to your specs. If you had, you might want to protect that
secret.

~~~
ue_
Then they should protect that with non-disclosure agreements, or realise that
they can't survive as a business (or don't want to) without restricting the
freedom of the workers to do what they want to outside of the time paid to the
employee in the form of wage.

I have little or no sympathy for businesses which insist on restricting
freedom outside of those hours for which it pays me wage.

~~~
StavrosK
I agree, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

------
watertom
Health insurance is also part of the rigged labor market.

The only reason big companies offer health insurance is because it limits
employees's freedom. It would be easy for the Fortune 100 or 200 in unison
agree to eliminate health care and provide a higher salaries. It would make
the companies more competitive globally and it would free them from a whole
lot of other nonsense, but they don't drop healthcare. The reason they don't
droop healthcare is because healthcare and pre-existing conditions limit
employee options and it suppresses wages. Also if there was universal
healthcare it would be easier to start small companies and attract employees,
those small business would be competing for employees against big companies on
equal footing.

Healthcare is a racket limiting not just healthcare but freedom.

~~~
djsumdog
I agree entirely. Student debt and healthcare have evolved to be a means of
keeping people trapped in industry. After dealing with health care in other
countries, I wrote a post on what I found returning to America:

[http://fightthefuture.org/article/returning-to-america-
and-t...](http://fightthefuture.org/article/returning-to-america-and-the-
unaffordable-care-act/)

America wants you to work. Work work work work work. Our European neighbours
can save up and take a few months off every few years and not have to worry
about health care. In America, we only get socialised healthcare when we're
too old to work and are no longer useful to society.

~~~
bmmayer1
To be fair, Americans work. Work work work work[1]. Americans love work and
elect politicians who love work.

Europeans hate work. Hate hate hate hate[2]. They hate work and elect
politicians who also hate work.

That major (cultural? economic? social? political?) difference between
American and European attitudes towards work might explain these statistics:

American vs EU unemployment rate: 4.7% vs 8.2% American vs EU _youth_
unemployment rate: 9.4% vs 17.3% American vs EU GDP per capita: $56k vs $35k

And so on.

Point being, things are only the way they are because we want them to be that
way--and elect politicians who do as well.

That said, I agree with the core premise: corporate-sponsored healthcare is a
lousy drag on the economy...

[1] [http://www.projecttimeoff.com/news/press-
releases/americans-...](http://www.projecttimeoff.com/news/press-
releases/americans-waste-record-setting-658-million-vacation-days) [2]
[https://www.etui.org/Topics/Trade-union-renewal-and-
mobilisa...](https://www.etui.org/Topics/Trade-union-renewal-and-
mobilisation/Strikes-in-Europe-version-3-July-2016)

~~~
mamon
One thing about EU vs US comparisons: EU is not a monolith, it is an
organization with 28 different member countries.

Some of EU members are on the same level as US (e.g. GDP per capita is $51k
for Netherlands, $48k Germany), and then there are poor, post-communist
countries like Romania and Bulgaria which have GDP of $20k, which brings EU
average down.

Same goes for unemployment: Germany -> 3.9%, Netherlands -> 5.1%, Spain ->
18.75%

Plus, there is no such thing as "European attitude towards the work", because
Europe is very diverse in that regard.

~~~
acjohnson55
The USA is likewise not that monolithic. More so than Europe, for sure. But
still.

~~~
bmmayer1
+1 true. I only grouped EU together for simplicity. It also makes sense since
they, by their own political and economic admission, are a unified trade bloc
and should share some responsibility for EU-wide economic indicators.

------
algesten
I had a previous employer trying to stop me from working directly for a
client. Only, I had brought in the client, I was the only one working for that
client and that client didn't want anything to do with the rest of my
employer.

I felt morally OK with the situation...

Only, my contract did have a noncompete. But then, this is Sweden, and
noncompete clauses are almost not enforceable by Swedish law. An employer
can't stop an employee to take another position. To be a valid clause, an
employer must offer the same payment the new position would have had whilst
riding out the non-work period, and no one does that.

A strongly worded letter from my lawyer sorted it. Never heard from them
again.

~~~
nraynaud
In France, the clause has to have a salary included in the non-compete. The
former employer pays you for all the time they prevented you from working at
your new job. I have never heard of any company asserting a non-compete.

~~~
eloisant
Yes, the only case where I've heard it's done is for fields where a lot of
research happen in the private sector.

In this case it may make sense to pay a former employee to do nothing for one
year until his knowledge of internal tech is no longer confidential because
published or released.

------
postfacto
If you're going to violate a noncompete, don't tell anyone you're going to
work for a competitor. Keep yourself as small of a target as possible for your
former competitor's legal team.

\- When you quit, tell your now former employer that you're quitting to pursue
something other than what was your established industry. Your (made up)
lifelong dream of starting your own microbrew brand, Macrome supply business,
winery, whatever. Or looking after a sick relative, or going back to school
full time, etc.

\- Cut off ties with all your former coworkers, at least for the noncompete
duration. If you bump into them at the grocery store and you can't get away
from them, tell them about how wonderful the beer business is or how your
relative is doing.

\- Don't put on Facebook or Linkedin that you work for the new employer.

\- For the duration of the non-compete, only those closest to you who
critically need to know about your new employer, spouse, etc will know.

\- Avoid publicly-facing industry related activities that tie you to your new
employer for the duration of the noncompete. Giving speeches, presentations,
writing article, etc.

None of these are foolproof but they are all common sense. Remember the Monty
Python sketch about How To Not Be Seen.

~~~
lmkg
Your suggestion is that if your employer tries to pull this unethical behavior
against you, is that you should lie, run, hide, and sacrifice your own
personal relationships? There are better ways of dealing with this than acting
like what you did was criminal and laying low for a year until it blows over.

~~~
emodendroket
Such as what? Going to court?

------
bunderbunder
My last company's noncompete had a really nice twist: Instead of banning me
from seeking employment at a competitor altogether, it instead granted my
employer the right, to, at their discretion, compel me to delay starting at a
competitor for a certain amount of time. However, in order to do so they would
also have to pay my salary over that period.

~~~
advael
Seems like a bare minimum for such a contract term to be equitable, but
seeking work while you have a job is so obviously encouraged by the current
labor market that a non-compete clause strikes me as unpalatable unless it
comes with guarantees against termination altogether for the same term.

------
dimva
In finance, companies will pay you your salary to not work if they decide to
enforce a non-compete. It's written into the contract. I have friends who get
to take year-long paid vacations when they switch jobs just because they work
in HFT.

I'm surprised that this isn't law. I guess financial companies care about
their employees more and/or their employees are more astute about contracts.

Companies shouldn't be allowed to prevent their ex-employees from earning a
living. If it's that important for them to prevent the transfer of their
proprietary information, they should be happy to pay for it.

------
valuearb
"California law prohibits noncompete clauses, contributing to the inveterate
poaching with which the state’s technology industry was founded. It can be
brutal for employers, but it helps raise wages and has created a situation
where any company looking to hire a bunch of engineers in a hurry, be it an
established giant or a start-up, feels it should locate there."

~~~
ScottBurson
Noncompete enforceability is, to me, a very interesting example of how
individuals pursuing their own self-interest leads to a bad outcome for
everyone -- a classic Tragedy of the Commons. In a state that allows
noncompetes, it's in pretty much every employer's interest to use them and
enforce them as much as they can; and yet over the long run, their doing that
strangles the economy -- not fatally, but enough so that the Boston area, for
example, barely competes with Silicon Valley as a startup hub, despite having
an equally impressive local talent base.

Any state that wants to attract more technology companies should start by
copying California policy on noncompetes. Yes, existing businesses will fight
it tooth and nail, but it will make for a stronger economy.

~~~
__derek__
> In a state that allows noncompetes, it's in pretty much every employer's
> interest to use them and enforce them as much as they can

If I may nitpick, I'd argue that it only _appears_ to be in employers' best
interest to use/enforce them, in the same way that the butts-in-seats/time-in-
office metrics are used to gauge performance. It makes sense in a first-pass
estimation but breaks down when one considers the cultural impacts. People
tend to dislike feeling powerless, which is exactly the effect of non-
competes.

~~~
ScottBurson
I agree that it's short-sighted, not only in the way you describe, but also in
a much more direct way. While noncompetes make it easier to retain existing
employees, and pay them less, by the same token they make it harder to hire
new ones. This ties into the psychology of loss aversion [0]: people pay much
more attention to what they have and could lose, than what they don't have but
could gain. One could argue that outlawing noncompetes is important to protect
society from the effects of this almost instinctive irrationality in human
psychology.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion)

------
CalChris
In the US, California, North Dakota and Oklahoma are the exceptions. NCCs are
legal elsewhere.

[http://www.beckreedriden.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/nonc...](http://www.beckreedriden.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/noncompetes-50-state-survey-chart-20170204.pdf)

Even in CA, trade secrets have an exception.

[http://www.weil.com/articles/the-trade-secrets-exception-
to-...](http://www.weil.com/articles/the-trade-secrets-exception-to-
californias-ban-on-employee-noncompetition2_12-06-2013)

------
goatherders
I've been sued twice over non compete language. The good news is they are
reasonably hard to enforce because most judges will ultimately agree that
people have a right to change employers. The bad news is it can cost a lot of
money to get to the point where the judge says that.

~~~
krisoft
So you signed a second non-compete after being burned once?

~~~
goatherders
I didn't get burned either time. See: I had an agreement for someone else to
pay my legal bills.

------
punnerud
In Norway we added a law now from 2017 that the employer have to pay you the
same salary for the period the non-compete is in operation. Maximum 1 year. It
have you be in you contract up front, and they have to explicitly list
customers and competitors.

------
pducks32
It's important for software developers and in demand job applicants to push
the trends. I refused the noncompete clause at my startup (still got job) and
made a point of how I'm principled against them for hurting people like the
man in this article. We may be disconnected from the rest of America but maybe
my little requirement can put the thought in people's heads that it's wrong.

------
quizotic
In the early 1990s, I'd co-founded an object database company, with a standard
"east-coast-style" non-compete, which among other things, granted us
injunctive releif. Our top developer left to work for our main competitor. We
sued, and the courts ruled basically that there is no slavery in the US and
our developer had every right to earn a living doing what he knew how to do.
Maybe laws have changed, and maybe it varies by industry, but my experience is
that noncompetes are meaningless. BTW, I don't particularly wish they had
teeth, and my company was probably not significantly harmed by the outcome.
Just saying I wouldn't sweat too much about signing a noncompete.

~~~
ScottBurson
I don't know that this is good advice. Attitudes toward noncompetes vary from
state to state and probably even from judge to judge; I don't think it's a
good idea to put one's career at risk from what amounts to a coin toss, even
if the odds are 50/50 or even somewhat better.

------
dboreham
Since this should be illegal, or at least illegal absent some reasonable
compensation for giving up the right to freely seek alternative employment
(e.g. a big retention bonus), presumably our politicians offering "regulatory
relief" are to blame?

~~~
monksy
If the employee was terminated the non-compete should be terminated as well.

~~~
ben1040
I had a friend who got RIF'd from a software company, and their offboarding
paperwork included a 1 year noncompete that tied their severance as the
consideration. Essentially, "we don't want you working here, but we also don't
want you working anywhere else, either."

~~~
stupidhn
If the severance falls outside of the mandatory amount by law, then this is
reasonable. They are paying you not to work for a competitor for a time.

~~~
ben1040
It's reasonable if the severance is equal to the pay you'd get over the term
of the non-compete. They don't want you working for a competitor for a year?
That's fine, if they pay you a year's salary.

However, in my friend's case, she was given the 1-year noncompete in exchange
for 4 weeks' pay.

~~~
bb611
Presumably she turned it down?

~~~
monksy
Probably didn't know it would be 1 month severence.

------
carvalho
My first (and last) non-compete was when I was starting out as a web developer
in a small company. By the time I fully realized what I had signed I had
contractually given up my right to work for any other webdev company for 1.5
years, and even worse, the company owner stated that he believed the non-
compete also extended to all our clients (and the clients of a major client)
too. This meant nearly all banks, Heineken, Google, and consultancy agencies
(we ran a job board).

Needless to say I am not a web developer anymore.

------
danny_taco
As someone that was made to sign a confidentiality agreement under duress and
unfair pressure months after joining the company, with stipulations that
basically say ANY work I do, regardless of industry or during the weekend,
belong to the company. Even after I no longer work there up to one year, and
ONLY if I bother to sign the attached clause that says I no longer work there.

I'm so glad that tomorrow I'll be handing in my two weeks notice especially at
a critical time for the company. I'm also the most senior developer that
everyone else comes to with questions regarding how the system works and how
it can be improved. The original developers left for similar reasons.

What I'm trying to say is, if you think, as a business owner or employer that
you can act against the best interests of your employees then you'll end up
paying dearly for it one way or another.

------
vostok
The really annoying thing about noncompetes is that they're usually at the
discretion of the employer. You might be in a situation where you have a 12
month noncompete and nobody wants to hire you 12 months in advance, but then
your former employer terminates your noncompete within a month and stops
paying you.

~~~
delinka
If they terminated the noncompete, that's excellent!

I'm thinking you've made a typo. ;-)

~~~
vostok
It's not excellent because they stop paying you if they terminate the
noncompete, but you also can't look for a new job until the very end of your
noncompete period.

~~~
stupidhn
I'd love to know where you live that an employer can fire you and expect you
to honor a non compete.

The second they stop paying you your obligations end. No judge in the land
will prevent you from being unable to earn a living.

~~~
fnj
I have been given "agreements" to sign in which the non-compete clause is
plainly unconditionally worded: no matter what the cause of termination. I
don't know whether they expected to enforce it or not. I redlined the part
covering "dismissal", and my annotated agreement was not rejected.

This was in Massachusetts.

In the end I did get RIFed. They nailed me by conditioning the severance
package on accepting a freshly drafted non-compete. I went along with it
because I considered my likelihood of continuing in that line of work to be
negligible anyway.

------
solidsnack9000
This is a kind of feudalism, where the peasants need to rely on the strength
of lords and their knights (lawyers) to enjoy basic freedoms.

~~~
rhapsodic
_> This is a kind of feudalism, where the peasants need to rely on the
strength of lords and their knights (lawyers) to enjoy basic freedoms._

Actually, I think it's a hallmark of a free society where consenting adults
are able to enter into, or not, any agreements they choose. The problem is
that some people make bad choices in the agreements they commit to, or they
enter them in bad faith, not intending to honor them, and when the chickens
come to roost, we're instructed to feel sorry for them by writers at the New
York Times.

~~~
contravariant
I won't say that your definition of a free society is wrong, but I think it's
worth pointing out that it doesn't exactly rule out a feudal system.

~~~
rhapsodic
_> I won't say that your definition of a free society is wrong, but I think
it's worth pointing out that it doesn't exactly rule out a feudal system._

I didn't provide a "definition" of a free society.

~~~
contravariant
I suppose your post doesn't rule out that 'a free society' might be
characterised by more than just the ability to freely enter agreements.
However you did fail to distinguish your free society from a feudal system.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Using "poaching" to describe a company hiring someone from another company,
needs to die. Companies do not own people. It is strictly a business
relationship.

I think that the US as a whole should follow California in outlawing non-
competes. It definitely has been shown to be workable.

~~~
_red
Agreed with the silly use of the name 'poaching'. But how exactly is the state
preventing two people voluntarily entering into a contract a good thing?

Its pointless anyway, a first year law student will just rewrite as non-
circumvent + no-solicit + NDA agreements.

~~~
acdha
The problem comes from the market disparity: most employees need the job and
have limited bargaining power or legal representation while the company has a
whole legal team representing their interests. Similarly, the company has a
lot more data points on terms and compensation than the prospective worker.

As a simple example, the Jimmy John's sandwich chain had a no-compete for
their employees. Do you think the average person making subs is as comfortable
walking away from a job as the company is telling them the terms aren't
negotiable?

My favorite fix would simply to be requiring full compensation for the entire
term. Intel would pay an architect to sit on the beach rather than work for
AMD but nobody would think of trying that for the average developer.

~~~
_red
>As a simple example, the Jimmy John's sandwich chain had a no-compete for
their employees. Do you think the average person making subs is as comfortable
walking away from a job as the company is telling them the terms aren't
negotiable?

Its true they did have that contract. However it was never enforced and once
news of it broke they dropped it.

It would like never been enforced since its clearly unlawful. Any legal
contract must have 5 parts: (a) Offer, (b) Consideration, (c) Term, (d) Good
Faith, and (e) Acceptance.

The "Good Faith" provision means that no part of any contract is either for
one part or the other. The contract is implied to be "equal" in all parts.
Such a tact of getting low-paid workers to sign non-competes clearly violates
this, thus why it was basically unenforceable.

Now, just because some company tried to write a dumb contract, should we make
all contracts illegal?

~~~
acdha
We don't know whether they tried to use it and reached an agreement covered by
an NDA (do you accept or spend 10X the amount on legal fees?). Similarly, we
don't know whether it was ever threatened as part of a labor dispute: I first
heard about it in conjunction with the class action lawsuit about unpaid
overtime and it's very easy to imagine that the same manager trying to do that
wouldn't hesitate to threaten someone's ability to find another job, secure in
the knowledge that nobody working that job has the resources to lawyer up.

That power disparity is the fundamental flaw in your argument. The theory
you're repeating sounds great as long as the parties have roughly equal power
and knowledge, which just isn't true.

------
rdiddly
This prompted me to look at my employee agreement. Sure enough, there it is. I
signed it because I needed the job and wasn't asking too many questions.

But this is interesting, I work in an area of the company that isn't really
part of their core competency. Meaning that the kinds of firms that would hire
me are literally in another sector and wouldn't be considered competitors.

So this fact, that normally manifests as complaints that "management has no
idea what we do here" and/or that they "have no business claiming they're in
this business," ends up helping me out.

------
satai
Just for comparison: In Czech republic this clauses are legal, but their
duration is limited by law and the ex-employer is required to provide you a
compensation to the time that you are limited in the job market.

------
thinkloop
I've almost always been presented one, and I've always had it removed. It is a
certainty I will compete, especially the more I become an "expert" in an
industry, it's not a fair expectation. I work for startups, probably tougher
at big corps.

------
edanm
I'd just like to point out that there _is_ a case to be made for noncompetes,
they're _not_ just a terrible thing that companies do because they can. I
recommend reading "The Case for Non-Competes" by David Henderson
([http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/11/the_case_for_no....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/11/the_case_for_no.html)).

Here's a relevant quote (in which the author is actually quoting Aaron McNay):

" Both employers and employees would like to be able to train the employees if
the cost of doing so is less than the gains in productivity. However, there is
a potential collective action problem here. What happens if the employer
provides the training, but the employee then moves onto another job? The
employer bears the burden of the training costs, but does not receive any of
the benefits. As a result, the employer does not provide the training, and a
mutually beneficial trade is not made.

By preventing the employee from being able to move, a non-compete agreement
eliminates the collective action problem."

I'm not saying that non-competes are necessarily good, or necessarily bad. It
depends on the circumstances. But I do think that a lot of other commenters in
this thread _do_ think that non-competes are necessarily bad, and I think
that's incorrect.

~~~
Macha
In the example you gave, you could make an argument like that but it'd still
only feel any way fair iff:

* It started from the start of the contract/end of the initial training. * It was for a period much shorter than 2 years * It was voided if the employer terminated the contract

~~~
edanm
Why would it only feel fair based on some "arbitrary" rules you intuitively
feel are right? Why not let people negotiate based on their personal
situations, and let the market eventually sort out what combination works
best?

After all, for high enough salaries, I'd probably agree to very onerous terms.

Specfically about your list, I think the reason the period doesn't usually
start from the end of training, but rather the end of employment, is that it
is assumed you continue to have access to more training / more confidential
information, even if you work for a company for longer than the few months of
training. And I certainly hope most people work in a job in which they
continue to grow/learn.

As for voiding if the contract if the employee is fired, why make that a
condition? Wouldn't that just mean the bar for hiring new employees would be
even higher, because if they don't work out, you're both wasting lots of
investment, and _also_ running the risk of them taking your methods to a new
company?

~~~
Macha
> Why would it only feel fair based on some "arbitrary" rules you intuitively
> feel are right? Why not let people negotiate based on their personal
> situations, and let the market eventually sort out what combination works
> best?

Because the best solution from an economic position can involve screwing over
people in more vulnerable positions?

From TFA we have manual labourers and QC workers in a factory being forced
into non-competes. These are not people with much power in the free market.

> Wouldn't that just mean the bar for hiring new employees would be even
> higher, because if they don't work out, you're both wasting lots of
> investment, and also running the risk of them taking your methods to a new
> company?

I mean, if they sucked at following the methods to the point you let them go,
surely their attempt at bringing them to a new company would likely backfire

------
EarthMephit
In Sweden the during the non-compete period you have to pay the employee their
full wage, which seems like a fair balance.

If it is that important to the company the employee should be remunerated

------
teddyh
See also the classic _NDAs and Contracts That You Should Never Sign_ , March
28, 2000 by Joel Spolsky:

[https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/03/28/ndas-and-
contracts...](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/03/28/ndas-and-contracts-
that-you-should-never-sign/)

------
pluma
I'm not entirely sure how this compares to the situation under German (EU?)
law:

Generally noncompetes are fairly widespread to varying extents. The default
seems to be that you can't compete with your employer while you are employed
(whether it's by freelancing on the side, poaching their customers or directly
working for another competitor) though in practice employers will generally
grant you permission to have a side-job as long as there's no conflict of
interest and it doesn't impact your job performance.

However noncompetes terminate once the employment ends. The only way to extend
the duration of the noncompete is by having the contract also reimburse you
for the duration of that extended noncompete. Both sides can agree to lift
that extension but if it's in the contract, the employer will likely have to
pay for a certain amount of time whether they want to enforce the noncompete
or not.

So in other words, while there may be scenarios where noncompetes impact your
ability to find another job while still employed, the second your employment
terminates, you're either free or continually being paid an appropriate sum of
money.

As a freelancer I had clients that insisted on some form of noncompete, but
these were generally only protecting them from me "skipping the middleman" and
working for their customers directly -- which even without noncompetes would
have created some dodgy situations.

I've actually seen multiple major consulting companies (often international
ones or subsidiaries of international ones) that explicitly required a
noncompete so vague that it would have practically prevented me from working
for any company in the industry while also working for them -- because there
would have been just no easy way for me to tell whether I was accidentally
working for one of their customers or not. I never signed those but
considering that certain companies like to just put into contracts whatever
they would love to be able to do without any concern for validity or
enforceability, I wonder what the legal situation around those would have
looked like.

------
tomohawk
Last time I was given one of these to sign, it was in a group setting. So, I
just didn't turn it in. They never did make a stink about it.

Just because someone gives you a piece of paper to sign, doesn't mean you have
to. Wait until it's unavoidable.

------
Mathnerd314
Related comic:
[http://www.angryflower.com/1131.html](http://www.angryflower.com/1131.html)

------
rch
Keep in mind that sometimes a company will hire you into an unrelated job role
(evangelist, account manager, etc) until your lockup runs out.

------
brightball
Fwiw, my understanding is that in right to work states a noncompete CANNOT
prevent you from earning a living in your field. The clauses have to be
defined as very specific, time limited and reasonable otherwise they don't
hold up under legal scrutiny.

Stuff like, not being able to take current customers to a competing business
within a mile for a period of 1 year is considered reasonable.

~~~
howard941
Insofar as Florida (Floriduh), a "right to work" state is concerned, this is
sadly not correct. Most non-competes are enforceable here :( IAAL but IANYL.

~~~
brightball
Not a lawyer, but the ones I have spoken to here in SC have told me that's how
it worked.

~~~
siegel
Sadly, "right to work" laws have absolutely nothing to do with non-compete
enforceability.

------
mirimir
If you're working in a small industry where specialized skills are required,
and firms commonly collaborate, you may encounter unacknowledged/secret non-
compete policies. Basically, nobody else will hire you, and they won't tell
you why. If you've made some friends, they may tell you what's going on. But
there's little recourse.

~~~
bcjordan
Can't you sue the companies in question if there is any evidence they're doing
that?

~~~
mirimir
Sure, if you have the resources. In my case, it was far more feasible to
change careers.

Edit: I did speak with a few attorneys. But they all wanted cash up front. And
told me that I had little chance of success.

~~~
dsacco
Can you give an example of an industry like this?

~~~
trowawee
Software engineering? Like, two years ago? How are you on HN, but missed this?
[https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti-
po...](https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-
lawsuit-for-415-million/)

~~~
dsacco
I'm aware of that. I was asking about a smaller industry with more specialized
skills where that would be commonplace.

------
ericssmith
Speaking from personal experience ... At the time of signing you can see the
upside (the offer), but you can't know the downside, which can be quite
significant. It's a poor trade-off. Avoid these unless you get some kind of
severance for the period of the agreement. Mere employment as "consideration"
is a bad deal.

------
kenshi
An alternative point of view, even for those entering the industry: just don't
sign a contract with a non-compete clause.

At some point in your career you are going to have to negotiate over terms in
your contract. Best to get practice in as soon as the opportunity presents
itself.

------
michalu
In Europe these clauses are not enforceable. Whether you sign a contract with
such clause or not is irrelevant since it's not a qualified subject of a
contract. You can write in your contract whatever you want but only the
qualified subjects are binding.

~~~
waldfee
I've signed all the non-compete clauses that where present in my contracts
because those clauses are simply null and void.

------
bungie4
I had an employer attempt to have me sign an NDA, NCC and, forfeit any rights
to software I'd written in the previous 20 years, to them!

Pound sand.

So I was back on the street 2 weeks later.

------
anothercomment
I think in Germany at least, employers have to pay people for the damages
induced by non-compete (the loss of salary/earning potential). Ianal, though.

------
ThomPete
I am not a lawyer but my advice is generally to ignore it. Most wont care and
those who do mostly can't enforce it unless they paid you extra for it.

------
throwaway23421
this shit should be illegal. even small businesses are doing this now.
programmers are a dime a dozen and everyone is using open source. fuck all
these tech companies they don't have jack shit TO steal and force you to sign
away everything anyway

------
burntrelish1273
General rules-of-thumb (IANAL):

\- Sign the minimum of documents

\- Don't provide full, personally-identifying information unless it's
absolutely required

\- Negotiate terms of boilerplate agreements if they're too unreasonable /
don't apply

\- Don't sign a binding arbitration agreement, BA is a worthless/corrupt
system that nearly always favors the employer. [0]

\- For CA-headquartered companies, refuse to sign NCAs because it creates
legal liabilities (ie, could they involuntarily transfer an employee to
another state and then fire them to make an NCA apply?)

0\.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitra...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-
everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html)

------
bbcbasic
Interested to see how this plays in my jurisdiction. Seems they have quite a
sane approach in NSW:

[http://www.fglaw.com.au/non-compete-employment/](http://www.fglaw.com.au/non-
compete-employment/)

