|
Sickening posted:This is just exaggeration and needless worry. I would find it hard to believe that any company could realistically track where you go after you leave and even if they successfully did, could/would put in the resources to try to litigate an IT employee. Hell, the legal basis would be incredibly thin. The sky isn't falling people. Yep psydude posted:My mom's workplace (she works in higher education) recently tried that with an employee who had been working there for over 30 years because one of the new VPs wanted their own executive assistant. She went straight for a lawyer and sued for wrongful termination and ageism, and because there was no documentation to support their firing her for "poor performance," she was reinstated and given an undisclosed settlement. Nice
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
Sickening posted:This is just exaggeration and needless worry. I would find it hard to believe that any company could realistically track where you go after you leave and even if they successfully did, could/would put in the resources to try to litigate an IT employee. Hell, the legal basis would be incredibly thin. The sky isn't falling people. And unless the company is an IT services company, it may not even apply. Usually non-competes specifically call out competing in the company's core product or service. Just read it carefully and if you're unsure, consult a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
They're really only exercised and enforced in situations where you're going to work for a direct competitor in a position that may allow you to poach the company's clients. And even then, these are usually covered by nonsolicitation and nondisclosure agreements that don't outright prohibit you from working for the competitor, and which also have a set time period in which they are enforceable (usually 1-2 years).
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
The worse non-compete I ever signed was something like, "You agree not to work on a product that directly competes with product A or B for 6 months" Funny thing... I wasn't working on product A or B
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
I agree to not compete with the subject of non-competes. A quick interlude. Hey Stripe, what's the IP for this particular server? What am I, DNS? Ping the son of a bitch. 192 dot 168 dot get out of my inbox dot kiss off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Second straight Friday of basically doing nothing at work. Although I did manage to lock myself out of my security enclave account by being a big dummy and fat fingering it, so I guess that's something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Be careful before signing non-competes. Companies use them to bring frivolous lawsuits all the time, and get away with it because most people don't have $40K to drop on a defense. I know of one lovely company which has sued its employees after they quit to take a position in another, non-competing company. Some of those unfortunate souls still work there, essentially as wage slaves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
The non-compete is unenforceable for two main reasons: 1. "In IT in the US" is too broad a clause and interferes with constitutional 'life liberty and happiness' things. "In category (x)/industry (y)" is generally how they run, and usually with a geographic component too. 2. 1 year is too long and is also a restraint on quality of life. Generally 3-6 months is the max I've seen that's actually enforceable, though it does vary state by state (California as stated, basically ignores them). Source: 8 years in the startup world, I've probably signed more non-competes and NDAs than I have rent cheques. And unlike many I actually read them. Enforcement gets chancy too, because if it does go to court, and you can prove that a company inserted a deliberately infringing clause, they can be on hook for damages on a larger scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Be careful before signing non-competes. Companies use them to bring frivolous lawsuits all the time, and get away with it because most people don't have $40K to drop on a defense. I honestly do not believe this at all unless this is outside of the US.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Sickening posted:I honestly do not believe this at all unless this is outside of the US. I did not claim what they are doing is legal, only that it has occurred, and been effective at retaining their employees.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Look at how many people in this thread are carpets, Sickening. I fully believe that just the THREAT of such a thing would keep plenty of people from seeking new jobs because they are cowards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I did not claim what they are doing is legal, only that it has occurred, and been effective at retaining their employees. I guess you better name and shame then because this is the dumbest thing I have heard of in a little bit. The costs of opening cases on employees that leave you would be staggering. The burden of proof needed just to successfully litigate is already really high for cases that are legitimate, much less for frivolous claims. The scenario is so laughable I don't even see how it could be anything but fiction. nitrogen posted:Look at how many people in this thread are carpets, Sickening. I fully believe that just the THREAT of such a thing would keep plenty of people from seeking new jobs because they are cowards. Of course, but being a doormat and having a company who actively sues people who leave the company is a pretty big difference in likelihood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Sickening posted:I guess you better name and shame then because this is the dumbest thing I have heard of in a little bit. The costs of opening cases on employees that leave you would be staggering. The burden of proof needed just to successfully litigate is already really high for cases that are legitimate, much less for frivolous claims. The scenario is so laughable I don't even see how it could be anything but fiction Sickening posted:I guess you better name and shame then because this is the dumbest thing I have heard of in a little bit. The costs of opening cases on employees that leave you would be staggering. The burden of proof needed just to successfully litigate is already really high for cases that are legitimate, much less for frivolous claims. The scenario is so laughable I don't even see how it could be anything but fiction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
No thanks. I don't feel like embroiling my employer or my family in a defamation lawsuit. The company in question is privately owned. I fully realize it makes little financial sense for them to sue their own employees. Guess what? People do illogical and illegal things all the time. On topic, yes: this pisses me off. They have some good people we'd like to recruit, and who would enjoy working where I work while making more money. None of them are worth the hassle of a lawsuit, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Scaramouche posted:The non-compete is unenforceable for two main reasons: I work in a right to work state(Texas). Come at me bro. If you are stopping me from working then my state will have your balls in a sling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:I work in a right to work state(Texas). Come at me bro. If you are stopping me from working then my state will have your balls in a sling. RTW has nothing to do with this and non-compete clauses are perfectly valid in Texas with certain considerations
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Texas at least has non-compete statutes on the books, and for a while they ruled the 'at will' provision means if the employer can terminate at will the employee is actually being punished by non-competes (since they are giving up a right in exchange for essentially nothing). This apparently changed in 2006: http://www.robertslegalfirm.com/busnoncomp.html (smarmy lawyer blog that mostly exists to cherry pick search terms for new business) Unfortunately it appears that the definitions of 'overly broad' and 'reasonable' are being chipped away by precedent rulings in the intervening years since the Non Compete Convenant was enacted: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/BC/htm/BC.15.htm#15.50 That said, as I implied earlier, if the employer is found to be 'egregiously overly broad' they can get punished hard core for damages ($750,000 in this case): http://www.texasnoncompetelaw.com/2...ility-in-texas/ (smarmy lawyer blog that mostly exists to cherry pick search terms for new business) You guys can probably find similar info by Googling non compete enforcement (state name).
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
I'd like to see someone prove that non-competes are actually unconstitutional because the fear of changing jobs due to the threat of legal action over your choice of new jobs constitutes involuntary servitude. lovely wikiresearch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Paladine_PSoT posted:I'd like to see someone prove that non-competes are actually unconstitutional because the fear of changing jobs due to the threat of legal action over your choice of new jobs constitutes involuntary servitude. lovely wikiresearch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Nah, I'm fairly certain that we could get a SCOTUS ruling that involuntary servitude is actually good. It's not that it's good, but without it how are the JOB CREATORS going to have any incentive to hire more people (universal argument)??? Che Delilas fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:It's not that it's good, but without it how are the JOB CREATORS going to have any incentive to hire more people (universal argument)??? The economy totally isn't a human system for the benefit of humans, it's in fact a giant eldritch monster that demands we sacrifice people and treasure into its gaping maw. We need everyone to be on salary below the cost of living, working 60 hours a week, and by God they should be grateful. Because that's capitalism and totally good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
For us normies I don't think non-competes are much more than a weak deterrent. If you're like, head of product development for Google, there's a bit of an interest in keeping you from jumping ship directly to Microsoft, but who the gently caress cares if a help desk drone leaves Bumblefuck Systems Support, Inc and immediately goes to work for Chucklefuck Integrated Solutions, LLC? I got slapped with one once, from a Las Vegas-based company no less, where it's allegedly A Thing. Literally the email after I said my lawyer would be in touch they hosed right off with no problems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Non-competes given to non-key employees are usually either pointless over-application of a policy or a deliberate attempt to intimidate employees into sticking around instead of leaving for more money and better working conditions, depending on where the company falls on the incompetent<->malicious scale. While odds are most companies won't actually try very hard to enforce one against a low-level employee, there are companies out there who take employee resignations personally and will do everything they can to punish an ex-employee's perceived disloyalty (especially if their departure inspires other employees to start leaving a lovely company as well).
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
I recently had to go through this with my former company and got it diluted down to a 'no direct solicitation of our customers' for 12 months, which is fine as I'm not directly sales, just pre-sales. I also had it spelled out that they understood the nature of my new role would mean that I would indirectly encounter existing customers of the former employee, as I have no control over who the sales/business development teams at <new company> target.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
BurgerQuest posted:I recently had to go through this with my former company and got it diluted down to a 'no direct solicitation of our customers' for 12 months, which is fine as I'm not directly sales, just pre-sales. I also had it spelled out that they understood the nature of my new role would mean that I would indirectly encounter existing customers of the former employee, as I have no control over who the sales/business development teams at <new company> target. Isn't that a non solicitation agreement? Those are very common in sales type positions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Yes, that's what it ended up being, which is acceptable. The wording before requesting some changes was a far more broader non-compete, which wasn't feasible moving to a competitor and all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
dennyk posted:Non-competes given to non-key employees are usually either pointless over-application of a policy or a deliberate attempt to intimidate employees into sticking around instead of leaving for more money and better working conditions, depending on where the company falls on the incompetent<->malicious scale. It wouldn't surprise me if someone with inhouse litigation staff did the math on this and figured 40 hours of lawyer time during a slow month could save them X in salary over Y months, and set up a series of increasingly hostile agreements they forced on their now increasingly indentured workers. Sue the poo poo out of one employee on a barely enforceable clause in one of the many contracts you forced them to sign, then spread the word via bland yet threatening memo-all emails to the peons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Yeah, that's why performance reviews etc. should be documented and signed. "What do you mean I'm fired for poor performance; just two months ago I got a raise and the review says I've gone above and beyond what's expected. Lookit this document you signed then. I'll be calling my attorney, see you in court."
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
JazzmasterCurious posted:Yeah, that's why performance reviews etc. should be documented and signed. "What do you mean I'm fired for poor performance; just two months ago I got a raise and the review says I've gone above and beyond what's expected. Lookit this document you signed then. I'll be calling my attorney, see you in court."
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
So I stumbled over this earlier: Glad to see McAfee have finally fixed the most complained-about aspect of their product 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
poo poo pissing me off: people who hang out in the break room too much and strike up a conversation with anyone who comes in. Look guy, I'm just trying to fill up my water cup. I don't loving care about how much less you walk each day now that you no longer work at the DC office.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Well, on the last day of the year they made us all salary. There is some sort of a raise coming, but it's not going to be same as getting time and a half. Supposedly some folks had more OT than regular hours, but to me that just means they have a staffing problem. This is going to play out very interestingly, given that they still want 24x7 shifts and on call and such. The sucky thing is that leaving may be difficult due to how daycare and healthcare are working out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Always negotiate. Don't be afraid to reject their first offer. Especially if it's less than you made last year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Gounads posted:Always negotiate. Don't be afraid to reject their first offer. Especially if it's less than you made last year. Yeah this is going to be important. I am in a pretty good position, but my fall back position is not good. The bigger picture is quality of life though. Before, if I have to work late, or miss an appointment, it was because something was screwed up big time, and there was OT as compensation. If being salary means that I am tied to a cell phone and they can call me whenever, and I can't make commitments for anything going forward, that will be a bigger problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
rolleyes posted:So I stumbled over this earlier: The best part is that there are the other options. Implying that if you don't specifically selection "frustration-free," you will be getting the edition that instead includes frustration. Marketing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
It's frustration-free packaging. It's just something Amazon does and it means no sealed plastic clamshells or what have you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:It's frustration-free packaging. It's just something Amazon does and it means no sealed plastic clamshells or what have you. And it's quite amazing. I hate those plastic clamshells.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:It's frustration-free packaging. It's just something Amazon does and it means no sealed plastic clamshells or what have you. Oh, okay, I read "package." That makes more sense and restores my equilibrium; a universe where McAfee isn't a frustrating piece of poo poo would just be weird.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:And it's quite amazing. I hate those plastic clamshells. Clamshells are fine when they're not welded shut.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
For christmas one year I received special clamshell scissors. Packaged in a clamshell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:56
|
|
