yo mama Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 (edited) More often than not, these are documents that a judge can not enforce. More of a protection or intimidation tactic from the employers point of view, but if they want to make your life miserable by taking you to court they can...what would that really cost you when it's all said and done? As I recall, these agreements can be enforced if the restrictions are reasonable in scope geographically, in post-employment duration, and in terms of the breadth of services that are covered. On the one hand, there is a public policy against restricting another person's ability to make a living. On the other, these contracts are fairly standard in the business world. A reasonably crafted noncompete is perfectly legal, especially if the employer pays you for it. But you can't know if YOUR agreement is valid until you to talk to an attorney who knows the applicable Texas. Edited October 12, 2010 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 A reasonably crafted noncompete is perfectly legal, especially if the employer pays you for it. Even if you are laid off through no fault of your own? That is ridiculous - in theory, every other company could offer you a job and you couldn't take it, having to draw unemployment instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 There is absolutely zero chance I would sign that. I have a friend who signed one in Arkie a few years back. He quit and started his own gig and it went to court. The judge said that you can't keep someone from providing a livelihood for themselves. I wouldn't sign it anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Even if you are laid off through no fault of your own? That is ridiculous - in theory, every other company could offer you a job and you couldn't take it, having to draw unemployment instead. Like I said, the restrictions need to be reasonable. The legal question at issue is whether the restriction you mentioned is reasonable under the present facts and circumstances. Probably not for a janitor. Might be if you hold the secret recipe to Coca Cola. The massive grey area in between is what a good attorney is paid to navigate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myhousekey Posted October 12, 2010 Author Share Posted October 12, 2010 (edited) I'm interested in knowing why now, 5 years into your tenure, they've decided to even go with a non-compete clause. Did something specific happen? Not with you, but with a previous employee? Were they pilfering so many employees from a competitor that they thought, "Hey....maybe we should cover our own asses?" Are they secretly looking to downsize and don't want anyone they fire out there working for rivals? Why now are they so fired up to implement this? Just seems curious. They've recently had a handful of engineers leave the company and go work for some of our customers. A few of those engineers went thru some expensive software training right before they left and are using it at their new job. My 2 biggest complaints in the document are: 1. If I'm terminated for any reason I can not go work for a customer or competitor for 24 months 2. If I'm terminated for any reason I have to payback training/certification costs if they were received in the last 5 years. Edited October 12, 2010 by myhousekey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Bottom line here... It is enforceable (In GA anyway), they want you to sign it so that you don't run off to a competitor after the invest time and monies into you and if you like your job, you will probably be forced to sign it. I would have them include an exception for termination. They might not want to do this because they may feel that it could set up an adversarial environment between you and them where you still have some leverage, you can sandbag and force them into firing you should another opportunity come up. But, if they are reasonable, a termination exemption shouldn't be a big issue. I'm guessing that in your field there is high demand for a person with your skill set or a new competitor is coming into the market and looking for people with your talents (kinda the same thing) and thus they are requesting that people in your position sign this to keep any movement from occurring. YOu need to make the decision as to what is best for you and your family. Will you be happy with your company over the next few years, if so I would not be too concerned about the K if they modify the language. But, if you are unhappy and there is demand for your skill set, look at moving to another company, though I'm pretty sure they will have you sign something similar if the environment in your industry is as I am guessing that it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 I would have them include an exception for termination. They might not want to do this because they may feel that it could set up an adversarial environment between you and them where you still have some leverage, you can sandbag and force them into firing you should another opportunity come up. But, if they are reasonable, a termination exemption shouldn't be a big issue. Have them specify termination not for cause as an exemption if necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Have them specify termination not for cause as an exemption if necessary. (Lawyers needed) Something as simple as, In the event of termination by COMPANY HERE the terms of this contract are rendered null and void. No restitution for training (etc...) as outlined in (section of contract) is to be paid by employee and employee will not be barred from seeking employment with a competitor, client, or any other company as outlined in (section of contract).... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 Bottom line here... It is enforceable (In GA anyway), they want you to sign it so that you don't run off to a competitor after the invest time and monies into you and if you like your job, you will probably be forced to sign it. Now voted on as a state constitional amendment, whose wording on the ballot seemed to indicate the opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 Now voted on as a state constitional amendment, whose wording on the ballot seemed to indicate the opposite. I voted against it. The wording was really confusing, you need to read the bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 I voted against it. The wording was really confusing, you need to read the bill. Same here. But the politicans count on most voters not reading the whole bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 Same here. But the politicans count on most voters not reading the whole bill. I didn't read it either... I took the easy route and I had my attorney explain it to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.