Non compete clauses

I think they are illegal in California, a state that protects employees' rights to earn a living.

You should look at the specific wording of yours. To be valid in states other than CA, there must have been consideration (something) given in exchange for the agreement. There must be limited duration, limited geographic area. Your state law might even have something that says it's illegal if it creates undue hardship.

Your state probably has an employment law section on its website that talks about this. If you decide to talk to an attorney about this, you want to ask if he usually represents employees or represents employers.
 
GSP_37 said:
I think they are illegal in California, a state that protects employees' rights to earn a living.

You should look at the specific wording of yours. To be valid in states other than CA, there must have been consideration (something) given in exchange for the agreement. There must be limited duration, limited geographic area. Your state law might even have something that says it's illegal if it creates undue hardship.

Your state probably has an employment law section on its website that talks about this. If you decide to talk to an attorney about this, you want to ask if he usually represents employees or represents employers.
Click to expand...

Good idea...never even thought of that.
 
Just found out that the position I'm applying to has benefits that put my current ones to shame. Man I hope it goes well.
 
SevenSamurai said:
Lots and lots. What state are you in?

For a regular position in a company, Non-complete clauses are almost legally worthless and unenforceable in right-to-work states (if you want to fight them) however that isn't their true purpose -while they cannot prevent someone from seeking work and a livelihood in those states -they will require that person a bunch of legal headaches and expenses to do so -which creates a nice annoying deterrent for someone hastily jumping ship.

For executive positions and positions of extreme strategic importance the ink is usually stronger and can be enforced in right-to-work states because just compensation is in the contract and thus you are not preventing someone from putting basic food on their table.

I have a clause in mine which basically says in the event I am fired or such -they will continue to pay me for one year in exchange for not working for a competitor for a period of one year. They can also continue to pay me an agreed sum past this period (for up to 3 years) I believe) to prevent me from going to a competitor if they choose. This is to prevent me from raiding the ranks of the company, moving clients to my new company, and using information to benefit another company that we all know happens that can't be proven. As I hold most of the close and detailed relationships at my company, an owner would likely do this until they could secure transition of the relationships to a replacement that could hold on to the account. -In my case this would never actually happen -the owner and I are like best friends and he is going to retire in 2 years a wealthy man in his mid 40s largely because of my hard work -he would never fire me.
Click to expand...

Josh said:
They're essentially unenforceable and worthless. There are other ways to protect proprietary knowledge or practices, I'm not sure why companies still use the non-compete thing. I guess they're a psychological deterrent for people who don't know they are meaningless.
Click to expand...

came to say this.
 
FlowWithTheGo23 said:
Anyone have any experience with these? I'm looking at a new job, but it's not in the same field. Would my non compete clause have any bearing on something like that? I have the paperwork around here somewhere, but was just wondering.
Click to expand...

You should definitely not have an issue if it is in a different industry.

Non-competes in general are hard to enforce and are looked upon unfavorably in the courts. They should be very specific and limited in time, industry, and geographical scope. The courts recognize that a person has a right to work and earn a living and if something in the agreement is found unreasonable, they will find the whole agreement unenforceable.

If you have the potential to steal customers or former clients they may try to do something about it. But generally, in a case like yours, its probably not something to worry about.
 
anaconda said:
You should definitely not have an issue if it is in a different industry.

Non-competes in general are hard to enforce and are looked upon unfavorably in the courts. They should be very specific and limited in time, industry, and geographical scope. The courts recognize that a person has a right to work and earn a living and if something in the agreement is found unreasonable, they will find the whole agreement unenforceable.

If you have the potential to steal customers or former clients they may try to do something about it. But generally, in a case like yours, its probably not something to worry about.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they're two different industries. My boss is just such an asshole, nothing he does would surprise me.
 
My uncles brother in law signed a non compete clause with his company and had to wait a full year before he started directly competing with them..So when his "clause was up" he then decided to directly compete with them by bringing LUSH to Canada, now he's like a multimillionaire and there was nothing they could do about it! NOTHING!
 
Attempting to deny someone the right to earn a living and put food on the table is a despicable act and we need some brave modern day Abraham Lincoln to stand up for the little guys and against the corporate greed.
 
I deal w/ non-competes on the daily as a headhunter. Most are just in place to discourage an employee from leaving, and are rarely enforced (I've seen only a couple of cases - a founding employee moving to a direct competitor, and other smaller companies with founders that are punching above their weight). Courts generally look down upon non-competes as well, and given the current economic climate, even moreso. Also, depending on what state you live/work in (right to work, and basically Cali).
 
iThrillhouse said:
My uncles brother in law signed a non compete clause with his company and had to wait a full year before he started directly competing with them..So when his "clause was up" he then decided to directly compete with them by bringing LUSH to Canada, now he's like a multimillionaire and there was nothing they could do about it! NOTHING!
Click to expand...

Hook me up with some Bath Bombs for the GF! lulz

Lush makes great products.
 
iThrillhouse said:
and its pricey enough that you get the "WOW! YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE!" reaction
Click to expand...

sad that this is true for most.

My GF used to be very wealthy growing up and lost it all at age 17 including her house, horses, boats, etc and eventually both parents from the stress killing them.

So she is not impressed with spending money -she's acts like she is an old woman who lived through the depression when I buy her things lulz. She'd rather me save money than spend it on her.

but she is a rare find.
 
I'm sure McDonald's won't try to intervene if you get hired by Wendy's
 
SevenSamurai said:
sad that this is true for most.

My GF used to be very wealthy growing up and lost it all at age 17 including her house, horses, boats, etc and eventually both parents from the stress killing them.

So she is not impressed with spending money -she's acts like she is an old woman who lived through the depression when I buy her things lulz. She'd rather me save money than spend it on her.

but she is a rare find.
Click to expand...


man that right there is fantastic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,896
Messages
55,453,137
Members
174,784
Latest member
Username Required LMAO

Share this page

Back
Top